Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Lords amendments agreed to.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Ordered

That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered

That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered

That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered

That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;

Ordered

That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT) PIER BILL

Ordered

That so much of the Lords Messages [18th and 25th October] as relates to the British Transport Docks Bill and the Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Pier Bill be now considered;

Ordered

That the Promoters of the British Transport Docks Bill and the Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Pier Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intent ion to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;

Ordered

That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered

That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

Ordered

That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the l3ills in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered

That these Order; be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Staffing Levels

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that staffing levels in offices dealing with social security benefits are adequate.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I am satisfied that the national staffing provision matches the national work load though I naturally cannot say that every one of more than 500 local offices has its correct share of those staff at all times.

Mr. Knox: As there has been a great increase in the work load in these offices, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case for increasing the number of staff to ensure that payments to those in need are made efficiently and speedily?

Mr. Rossi: There is always a seasonal increase in the work load. This year there has been an increase in the amount of supplementary benefit work required, especially in inner cities, but that is being offset by reductions in work on the contributory benefit side, especially in the number of claims for sickness benefit, which has fallen dramatically. There is a system for deciding the staffing levels in local offices—a system agreed with the trade unions—which aims to match staffing requirements with work loads. There is no hard evidence to show that the system is not working well.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give the House some information about the raids which occurred in Oxford? Will he confirm that the costs to the Department and to public funds were more than £100,000, but that nothing like that amount was saved as a result of the raids? Does the Minister agree that the real problem at Oxford was lack of staff to supervise the system in the first place, and that, if an adequate number of staff had been employed, there would have been no need for those well publicised raids and the great injustice that resulted from them?

Mr. Rossi: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. There is evidence that deliberate fraud was being exercised which is not easily detected by normal processes.

National Health Service (Pay)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the talks on a new structure for the pay of nurses and ancillary staff in the National Health Service.

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in the light of the dispute within the National Health Service over pay, he is yet able to bring forward proposals for improving the methods of settling pay within the National Health Service.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have chaired four meetings so far which have discussed better permanent pay determination arrangements for nurses and midwives. Separate discussions are being held

with representatives of the professions covered by the main Whitley Professional and Technical A Council. Some limited progress has been made. As my right hon. Friend reported again to the House last week, we remain prepared to meet the Trades Union Congress health service committee to discuss possible changes in the pay determination arrangements for other groups of National Health Service staff—including ancillary staff—whenever it is ready to call off industrial action and begin talks.

Mr. Hamilton: When will the Department stop misleading the country and the House on these matters? Is not the so-called two-year offer worse than the original offer of June, which was rejected overwhelmingly by all the unions and the Royal College of Nursing? Is it not the case that there is no more money on the table and that the Government are asking low-paid workers to accept 4 per cent. in 1983-84, which is disgusting and completely unacceptable?

Mr. Clarke: We do no service to anyone by these quibbles over figures. Plainly, the offer we made involved no reduction whatever on the offer we made previously for more money this year. It also included more money for the second year based on a suggested 4 per cent. increase, which is higher than the pay factor that the Government have decided for the public sector as a whole. All that was paving the way to better long-term arrangements for determining the pay of nurses and midwives. The Government are anxious to move on to such arrangements. I only wish that the trade union movement was equally anxious to do so.

Sir David Price: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in manufacturing industry the lesson is clear that the closer to the shop floor negotiations take place the more likely one is to achieve a solution satisfactory to every one concerned? Will he therefore try to get some local element into the labyrinthine complexity of National Health Service pay negotiations? Does he not recognise that it is ridiculous to try to work out the last penny in London for catering staff in hospitals throughout the nation?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the closer one gets to the shop floor in the Health Service the more one finds impatience over the fact that these matters are dragging on and a desire that union leaders should get back to talking and resolving the issues. The Government are trying to resolve with the trade unions and others the right level of resources for the Health Service as a whole. The Whitley Council machinery, which includes representatives of local management, exists to apportion the money among the various staffs. The refusal of the TUC to go to the Whitley Council is stopping the detailed negotiations that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Mike Thomas: How can it be right for the Government, in seeking to achieve a proper long-term settlement of the dispute, to ask some of the lowest paid people in the country to take a real cut in their pay, as the Minister admitted in the House last Wednesday? Is the Minister aware that he would sweep out the baby with the bath water if one result of his activity was the removal of the no strike rule 12 in the current RCN ballot?

Mr. Clarke: Health Service workers as a whole are not exceptionally low paid compared with the generality of employees. They are asking other employees—for example, local government manual workers—to take part


in days of action in their support when those local government manual workers on average earn less than Health Service workers. Everyone this year has accepted pay offers below the level of inflation. The offer to the Health Service workers and the nurses compares favourably with others. The offer we have made for next year compares favourably with the public sector pay factor put forward by the Government.

Mr. Terry Davis: On the need for a new system to determine pay in the National Health Service, is it not a fact that the trade unions were originally given to understand that the Government wished to introduce a new system in April 1981? They were then told that the Government wished to introduce it in April 1982, then that it would be April 1983, and now, through the medium of the latest offer, that it will be April 1984. Why is it always jam tomorrow, never jam today?

Mr. Clarke: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has given a totally inaccurate account of progress towards the Government's ambition for better long-term arrangements for nurses, midwives and professions supplementary to medicine in the Health Service in particular. The first offer was made by my predecessor. It took a year for the staff side even to answer the letter suggesting that talks should begin. Finally, at our insistence, we got talks started. There has been a lack of progress. I am not satisfied that all those negotiating for the TUC really wish to achieve a successful conclusion, because better long-term arrangements would reduce their bargaining position in the annual bargaining arrangements. The only reason why we suggested 1 April 1984 compared with the last date given was that we were obviously making slow progress in the tripartite arrangements, and we thought it the earliest practical date at which to aim. If people will get down to quick progress on better long-term arrangements, the Government, the Royal College of Nursing and many others who are interested would like to see us get on with it.

Mr. Forman: In seeking to secure better long-term arrangements for Health Service pay, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is helpful to look forward to a time when inflation has fallen still further? Will he consider the possibility of making fuller use of something like the pay information board, suggested by Megaw, for the whole public sector?

Mr. Clarke: As inflation keeps falling, the unreality of the 12 per cent. claim becomes ever plainer. I cannot for the life of me understand why the TUC has not budged from the 12 per cent. claim. The second point is one of many suggestions now being proposed for public sector pay determination. That and similar matters are among those we are trying to consider in the tripartite discussions with the management and staff side in the Health Service.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of all the replies, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received from regional health authorities about the National Health Service pay negotiations.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to meet

the chairman of the regional health authorities to discuss the financial allocation for increases in National Health Service pay.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Nor. Norman Fowler): I have regular meetings, usually every two months, with the chairmen of the regional health authorities and have kept in close touch with them throughout this dispute.

Mr. Lofthouse: In view of the figures given in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 5 July, is the right hon. Gentleman's statement of 25 May that an increase of 2 per cent. could be achieved any longer valid?

Mr. Fowler: As the hon, Gentleman has given me no notice of either of those points and the replies to which he refers, I shall study them and give him a formal reply.

Dr. Marshall: Would it not be more clear and straightforward for all concerned if financial allocations to regional health authorities for wages and salaries were kept completely separate from financial allocations for other purposes?

Mr. Fowler: Yes. There is something to be said for that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had to ask the regional health authorities this year to make some contribution to the pay awards that have been made. I hope that for the coming round—this point has been made in reply to an earlier question—and the two-year settlement that we propose, this will not be necessary.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend confirm—or deny—that one difficulty that he faces is that the TUC is determined that all the differentials that help nurses should be swept away? This is an important point.

Mr. Fowler: I can confirm that. When the members of the TUC health services committee came to see me, they said that one of the sticking points for them was that they wanted no differential or preferential rate for nurses. The Government believe that nurses deserve a 1½ percent. differential as a reward for their professional training. We shall stick to that position.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, does the Secretary of State agree that it is a waste of money for him to spend £85,000 on press propaganda putting the Government's side when he has the House of Commons, newspapers, radio and television which he could use without spending any taxpayers' money? Why did he waste taxpayers' money in that manner?

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman will perhaps recollect, the advertisements were placed when the House of Commons was not sitting. It was August.

Mr. Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman could have made a statement at any time.

Mr. Fowler: We placed the advertisements to counter the thoroughly misleading and mischievous propaganda from the other side.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the revised offer made on 16 September followed detailed negotiations with the trade unions and that the Government had every reason to expect the unions to accept that as the basis for further negotiations? Will he


confirm that he remains available to discuss matters further along these lines if only the trade unions are prepared to talk with him?

Mr. Fowler: I confirm my hon. Friend's second point. My door remains open. There is £1,100 million on the table. We have also offered the Health Service unions talks about new long-term arrangements separate from the talks that we are having with the nurses. There is absolutely no question—it has never been seriously denied or challenged—that the proposals made on 16 September were carefully worked out following talks with Mr. Spanswick, the chairman of the health services committee and Mr. Jacques, the secretary. That makes it all the more indefensible that the trade unions are not even prepared to come to the negotiating table to talk.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not true that the regional health authorities will have to find 34 per cent. of this totally inadequate offer now? Will the Secretary of State, next time he meets the RHA chairmen, explain that he is not even giving a guarantee to fund this offer next year? That will mean an even greater cut in patient care.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady refers to the knock-on effect into next year. What she says about this year is true. We made this clear at the time. In regard to the knock-on effect on the Contingency Reserve next year and whether the Treasury picks up the bill, I shall have to ask the hon. Lady to wait for a few weeks, when all will be made clear, even to her.

Supplementary Benefit (Capital Ownership)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will alter the rules on ownership of capital in relation to the granting of supplementary benefit so as to remove the disincentive to saving.

Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are increasing from this November the amount of capital that a claimant can have while remaining eligible for supplementary benefit. The amount disregarded is to be increased by 25 per cent. to £2,500. That will fully restore the value that it had when the present arrangements were introduced in November 1980. The Government will continue to keep the operation of the capital rule under review.

Mr. McCrindle: I welcome that improvement, but is it not wrong that the surrender value of a life policy should be taken into account in assessing whether a person owns capital equal to £2,500? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the surrender value of a life policy has no monetary value unless the policy is cancelled? Is he encouraging people to do that?

Mr. Fowler: I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend. The review that was carried out for the Supplementary Benefit Policy Inspectorate showed that only 8 per cent. of claimants reviewed had assurance policies and that most were for only a few hundred pounds. Therefore, that made no material difference. I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is saying, and the Government will continue to keep that aspect under review.

Mr. John: While the Secretary of State is expending his limited stock of sympathy, will he also look at redundancy payments? Is it not disgraceful that people

should be debarred from having supplementary benefit because of the redundancy payments that they have received as casualties of the Government's industrial policy? Will the Secretary of State also look at the ridiculous bar for single payments of £300 of capital, which was not raised this year? That figure is unrealistic, and great hardship is caused to many people.

Mr. Fowler: The inspectorate's report showed that there was not a major problem, which many people thought there was, with regard to redundancy payments. If the hon. Gentleman wants to check that, the report is in the Library. The single payment capital disregard was set in November 1980. I am conscious of the need to keep that under review as well.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties arising from the capital resource regulations for smallholders who own 2 or 3 acres of land surrounding their family homestead? That is prevalent in the slate quarrying and some of the coal mining areas in Wales. They cannot sell that land without selling their home, yet it has a value of over £2,500, which debars supplementary benefit. Will the Secretary of State consider that matter in comparison with croft owners in Scotland, whose land does not qualify as a capital resource for these purposes?

Mr. Fowler: I give an assurance that I shall consider that matter.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend look into the case of Mr. York of Northampton? He is due for compensation for something that happened to him in the past, which depressed his living standard. If he receives that compensation, he will have to spend it before he is entitled to supplementary benefit. His living standard was depressed in the past. Can he not make up for that depression in his living standard before he is deemed to have capital that disqualifies him?

Mr. Fowler: That comes into the general review that I have already mentioned. [Interruption.] I thought that Opposition Members would be pleased that we were having a general review. I intend to continue with it. I shall also consider my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Freud: Further to the original answer to the question, are we to take it that the Secretary of State feels that 8 per cent. of humanity is too insignificant a sum to mention? Does he realise that that is one person in 12?

Mr. Fowler: Of course I realise that. That is one of the reasons why I have already said that the Government are continuing to keep that aspect under review. I hope that the House, knowing the form that the review takes, will contain its impatience.

Death Grant

Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, following his consultations on the death grant, if he will now make a statement on the grant's future.

Mr. Rossi: A total of 597 letters commenting on the proposals put forward in the consultative document have been received, of which 55 per cent. rejected all of the options put forward, 30 per cent. supported one or more of the options and 15 per cent. covered other suggestions. There were four petitions rejecting the proposals. The


Government are considering what, if any, action should now be taken in the light of the public response to their proposals.

Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm his opposition to any means test at the time of death? Will he redouble his efforts to see whether it is possible to find a clawback from estates that could repay any death grants that were given?

Mr. Rossi: Both those matters were implicit in the proposals in the consultative document. First, there was a limit with regard to the amount of the estate, and that worked as a clawback. Secondly, by passporting we felt that we avoided a means test at the time of death.

Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that the death grant has been under review for about 14 years? Does he accept that the representations that he has received reflect the opinions of millions of people who are concerned about the issue? Is he aware that the delay in coming to a decision about the future of the death grant, coupled with the £300 cut-off for single payments that was mentioned earlier, is causing great hardship and concern to millions of old-age pensioners? Will he ensure that the matter is no longer under review and that it is brought forward to the House early in the new Session?

Mr. Rossi: I am aware of the concern that has been expressed on that matter. I am also aware that for 14 years no Government uprated the death grant—neither the previous Administration nor the present one. At least we have made an attempt to resolve the problem by diverting resources to where they are most needed. I repeat what I said when the consultative document was introduced to the House, that resources are not available for a substantial across-the-board uplift in the death grant.

Mr. Alexander: I appreciate the public expenditure constraints on my hon. Friend, but presumably he agrees that £30 is a fraction of the cost to the surviving relative after there is a death in the family. Now that the consultations appear to have been concluded, may we expect a comment or a statement shortly?

Mr. Rossi: I accept that the £30 death grant represents a small proportion of the average cost of a funeral today. That is one reason why the Government embarked on the exercise. We are now consulting colleagues about further steps to be taken as a result of the response. At this stage I cannot tell my hon. Friend when the consultations will be concluded.

Mr. Foulkes: Surely the Minister is aware that more than 500,00() people have died since he introduced his consultative document. In some cases, surviving relatives have received less than £30—either £15 or no death grant. Is it not about time that we were told when the House will be given a statement about the future of the death grant?

Mr. Rossi: The fact that sometimes no death grant is received after people die is due to the contributory principle. What we have suggested in our consultative document departs from the contributory principle. The majority of those who replied to us said that they did not want that principle to be breached. That is our problem.

Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of those of working age now receiving supplementary benefit; and what were the figures for May 1979, and the change in percentage terms.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): About 1,160,000 in May 1979 and about 2,190,000 in May 1982—an increase of 89 per cent.

Mr. Winnick: The figures speak for themselves. Does the Minister recognise the immense personal hardship that has faced so many families since the Government took office? Is he aware of the widespread dissatisfaction over the fact that staffing levels have not been increased in DHSS offices—in some cases the levels have decreased—leading to difficulties, delays and frustration for those who, in many cases, have to wait some lime, or for more time than they should, to receive supplementary benefit after they have been made redundant?

Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, as well as an increase in supplementary benefit work, there has been a substantial decrease in other parts of the Department's work—for example, on sick pay since the introduction of self-certification. The existing system tries to match work Load with complement across the nation and to distribute that fairly between local offices. We have made it clear, in the context of present anxieties, that we are prepared to re-examine that system. Meanwhile, we ate satisfied that the system as a whole matches work load as a whole.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has just announced could equally be said to show that the safety net that hon. Members on both sides of the House support is working fully and properly for those who need support at a difficult time?

Mr. Newton: Against the background of unemployment, which is much higher than any of us like, I should be disturbed if benefit were not reaching a larger number of people.

Mr. Rooker: What is the estimate of the increase in the numbers of those who will be forced on to the supplementary benefit means test, bearing in mind that after 22 October, when benefits change, a man earning £107 a week, with a wife and two children, who loses his job and remains out of work until the next tax year in March will receive 44 per cent. less income during those weeks because of changes introduced by the Government?

Mr. Newton: l cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure. We estimate that of the increase that I mentioned—about 1 million—approximately 750,000 people have run out of or were never entitled to unemployment benefit. I cannot be sure exactly how many people are covered by the hon. Gentleman's point, but certainly fewer than the remaining 250,000

Infertility Clinics

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will compile a register of clinics dealing with infertility, together with their charges.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am not aware of the need for such a register.

Miss Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the geographical maldistribution of these facilities means that unless a couple have a very sympathetic doctor they are unlikely to know where they can get advice about fertility? Is he aware that many people are pressing for some centralisation of such facilities so that obtaining knowledge of them is not left to the whim of their doctors?

Mr. Finsberg: I am not aware of the hon. Lady's latter point. There is no evidence of it in my Department. In 1979, 18,000 women and 700 men received NHS inpatient treatment for infertility in NHS hospitals. In 1978, 5,500 women and 300 men were treated. The number treated is clearly increasing. At the moment, therefore, I see no need for the centralisation that the hon. Lady mentions.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minster recognise the unevenness of the NHS service, which should be available to all? Will he therefore make a special study, through all the regional health authorities, and present the House with some figures to show that no matter where one lives the NHS is available to all?

Mr. Finsberg: I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's point. From the information at my disposal I understand that treatment is available at a substantial number of NHS centres.

Supplementary Benefit (Fuel Allowance)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people on supplementary benefit were given an extra fuel allowance for the winter of 1981–82.

Mr. Newton: In December 1981 some 2·3 million supplementary benefit claimants were receiving extra weekly payments for heating costs. In addition, last winter some 300,000 lump sum payments were made to help claimants with their increased fuel bills due to the exceptionally severe weather.

Mr. Strang: Will the Minister confirm that, on the basis of the Government's own figures, hundreds of millions of pounds of benefit will not be taken up this year? Does he agree that the Oxford police raid confirmed that the Government are devoting more public resources to saving a few million pounds than to helping children and old people who will suffer from the cold this year because of the non-take-up of benefits?

Mr. Newton: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is rubbish from beginning to end. From this November the Government will be spending about £300 million a year on helping people, especially those with the more difficult families—the under-fives, the over-seventies and the severely disabled—with regular weekly payments towards their fuel costs. That should be compared with expenditure of not much more than £100 million when the Government came to office. That is a significant strengthening of the benefit system. I welcome it.

Mr. Bowden: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the help that is being given through heating allowances. Nevertheless, does he agree that the present circumstance needs completely new thinking to help with a comprehensive fuel policy for those receiving supplementary pension and supplementary benefit? Does he agree that the system is in a mess? Will he set up a working party with the Department of Energy to examine the problem?

Mr. Newton: I shall not promise a working party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Have a review".] It seems that Opposition Members would like a review. We are anxious to do what we can to improve further the already considerable help that we give towards heating costs. My hon. Friend will know that I have been in close touch with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy all summer. I am glad that they were recently able to make some announcements about helping with standing charges when people have small bills. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

Mr. Ashley: Is it rubbish to say that under present regulations for fuel costs help, many needy families are left without help? If it is not, when does the Minister propose to introduce a national fuel scheme that is based on the difficulty experienced by some people in paying fuel bills?

Mr. Newton: I hope that I made it clear in my original reply that we have already dramatically improved the quantity of help with heating costs. We shall continue to search for improvements. We must also find the money to be able to do that.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be better public relations on the matter? Does he agree that many elderly people are not aware of what they are entitled to and that they are worried about the limit on savings that they may have before they can claim? Does he also agree that standing charges are an important concern? Does he further agree that the Department should make it clear to old-age pensioners that they will be the main beneficiaries of such a scheme?

Mr. Newton: Substantial additions, ranging as high as £250 a year, go automatically to families on supplementary benefit with under-fives and over-seventies. The higher addition of £250 goes to the severely disabled. I agree that we could improve on last winter's publicity with regard to single payments. We are endeavouring to do that, should the same problem arise this winter.

Mr. John: Will the Minister confirm that only 6 per cent. of all supplementary beneficiaries who were entitled to extra fuel allowance took it up? Will he comment further upon the crazy delay in his Department, which allowed the Government to protect wildfowl from the cold weather before helping supplementary beneficiaries?

Mr. Newton: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I agree that there were difficulties in the operation of single payments for fuel bills last winter. It was the first time that the regulation had been used and it was the first time since the winter of 1962 that there had been such a problem. We are attempting to learn from last winter's experience, in case a similar problem arises this winter. I hope that it does not.

Physical and Mental Handicap

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give additional support to reduce physical and mental handicap at birth.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We attach very considerable importance to the improvement of maternity and neonatal services to achieve further reductions in both baby deaths and handicaps. We do not earmark the growth money we


give to health authorities for specific purposes, but I am sure that authorities are well aware of the importance of maternal and neonatal services.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware that a handicapped child can cost society about £500,000 in its life? That, however, is not the real point. Is he aware that positive discrimination with expenditure in this area can reduce handicap and suffering for families and individuals concerned?

Mr. Clarke: I am familiar with that estimate. It comes from a Select Committee report. I am not sure how accurate it is. I agree that money is not the main point. We should try to reduce the amount of neonatal death and handicap birth in Britain. That is why we are giving such high priority to the subject. That is why we set up the Maternity Services Advisory Committee, which has just produced its first report. That is why we shall back up health authorities in an attempt to give the matter the right priority.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee report showed that improved facilities for women before, during and immediately after childbirth could produce savings of £153 million in 10 years by reducing child handicap? Does he agree that it is self-defeating not to move faster on this?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure that the report showed that, because the figures were, one might say, arguable. However, that is not the point. The Government do not need to be persuaded to give priority to maternal and neonatal services. That is why we are producing the draft minimum standards and that is why we have the Maternity Services Advisory Committee. Results are beginning to show, as there is now a very fast rate of reduction in neonatal death in this country, which I hope is matched by a corresponding fall in the number of births of handicapped children.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister consider urging greater honesty on the part of the National Health Service, such as would have prevented my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Bushell, from having to wait four months to learn from a coroner's jury that the death of their baby was caused by medical neglect?

Mr. Clarke: The whole House would urge honesty on the Health Service. The vexed matter of the investigation of complaints, and particularly of serious ones, is being considered at the moment. I shall look at the case cited by the hon. Gentleman and if there is serious cause for complaint I shall take it up.

Child Benefit

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many families are now receiving child benefit weekly and monthly; and how many families who were receiving it monthly have now been able to receive it weekly.

Mr. Newton: At 28 September 1982 child benefit was in payment to 6·94 million families, of whom 4·58 million or 65 per cent., were receiving payment weekly and 2·36 million, or 35 per cent., were receiving payment four-weekly.
About 249,000 families have switched from four-weekly to weekly payment, but about 242,000 of those

switches occurred because the payees' options to remain on weekly payment did not reach the child benefit centre until after the first four-weekly order book had been issued. The other 7,000 switches to weekly payment were made on exemption or hardship grounds.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that it was a particularly harsh cut for the Government to insist that new claimants for child benefit should receive it four weeks in arrears? Would is not be better to trust individuals to decide what is better for them rather than insist that they receive their benefit four weeks late?

Mr. Newton: I think that the balance of the policy is about right, following the changes made in response to representations in the House and elsewhere during the run-up period. It should be remembered that those on supplementary benefit or FIS who are lone parents or can show hardship continue to be able to have weekly payments.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend consider conducting a sample survey before the November deadline to see whether families on four-weekly benefit realise that they have a choice?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that a further survey would be justified. [Interruption.] I got the impression that the Opposition were not so keen on reviews, surveys and working parties. I am concerned that we should make the system work as well as possible and that we draw people's attention to the options available. We are continuing to do that.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister confirm that the change is part of the Government's public expenditure cuts? Will he remind the House and the country how much less child benefit will go to mothers in this year of the changeover?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give that figure off the cuff, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. The change to try to streamline the administration of child benefit was, of course, part of an attempt to make some economies. I stick firmly to the belief that the less we spend on administering the social security system, the more we can spend on benefits.

Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Race: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has concluded his review of the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: The operation of these regulations is an area of policy that is kept under constant review. [Interruption.] The Opposition seem very ambivalent about what they want in these matters. As the hon. Member knows from my reply to him on 13 July, this is also an area in which the Social Security Advisory Committee is taking a particular interest this year, as part of its monitoring of the supplementary benefit scheme. I await its conclusions with interest. After consultation with the committee, a number of specific changes were made to the single payment regulations earlier this year. I hope to have the report of the Social Security Policy Inspectorate on single payments within the next month or so. Revised guidance on the interpretation of regulations 9 and 10, dealing with grants for furniture, was issued by the chief supplementary benefit officer in August this year.

Mr. Race: Is it not ludicrous that the elimination of discretion to local officers pursuant to the 1980 changes in the regulations has come at a time when the Government have deliberately kept the scale rates of benefit low? Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely wrong that a young unemployed man claiming supplementary benefit should be refused payment for a pair of trousers when the zip has broken, on the ground that that is normal wear and tear and the Government will not allow local officers to give grants for normal wear and tear?

Mr. Newton: The Government have increased supplementary benefit rates in line with inflation and the rates include an allowance for clothing. I believe that it is entirely sensible that normal wear and tear should be deemed to be covered by those rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Falkland Islands

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to public funds of the military presence and civil units in the Falkland Islands since the cessation of hostilities.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The records do not distinguish between costs arising before the cessation of hostilities and those arising subsequently. The extra cost to the defence budget of the operation to repossess the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and Southern Thule, including the maintenance of our forces up to the end of September and the replacement of lost equipment, is estimated to be about £700 million. Some extra costs, of much smaller dimensions, have fallen on the votes of civil Departments, and £10 million has so far been allocated to rehabilitation, of which £8·6 million has been committed.

Mr. Dalyell: In saying that the Falklands crisis came out of the blue, does the Prime Minister mean that she had no warning of invasion before Wednesday 31 March?

The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear in my speeches during the debate on the Falklands campaign that that was so, so far as the Falkland Islands were concerned.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite what we have heard from the Opposition, the vast majority of the British public greatly admire her strong stand on the whole Falklands situation and that, with regard to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in Mr. Attlee's words, a period of silence on his part would be welcomed?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the whole House is glad that the people of the Falkland Islands have been restored to freedom and justice as a result of the bravery and valour of our Armed Forces.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Lady now say whether her notion of a "fortress Falkland" into the distant future is now sustained in her mind? As the Argentines and South Americans are far closer to those islands than we shall ever be, and as the cost of sustaining a powerful military presence will be an economic drain in the future, is it not sensible to think that, with a new regime and democratic developments in Argentina, this notion on her

part will be blown away and that there must eventually be a South American involvement in the administration of those islands?

The Prime Minister: The people of the Falkland Islands, being a democratic and free people, have that right to determine their own future. We have the right here, and because of it the hon. Gentleman is elected to this House. I may not agree with that decision, but I defend the right of the people concerned to make their own decisions.

Engagements

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new trade union has been launched today to safeguard the interests of nursery nurses and that that new trade union is pledged not to strike? Will she compare that responsible attitude with some of the actions of the trade unions involved in the National Health Service dispute?

The Prime Minister: No-strike rules in rule books are to be welcomed, and the new organisation is to be congratulated on the stance that it has taken. It follows the example of a similar union for professional teachers, which has stated that it will not strike. It is refreshing to find people who put the requirements of their job and their duty to children before their own selfish needs.

Mr. Foot: In view of the terrifying problems of the steel industry, will the right hon. Lady explain why she refused to receive a deputation from Scotland dealing with the steel industry this morning? Will she give us a clear assurance that, now that the matter is being dealt with by the Government, there will be no closure at Ravenscraig or any of the other main plants that are being threatened? Will she now go back on the statement that she made last Thursday about not wishing to introduce import controls to deal with this problem, and a similar problem in the motor industry?

The Prime Minister: The petition was handed in to No. 10 this morning by people working in the steel industry, and was received there. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to give undertakings about the future of particular plants. Yes, there is a serious problem in the steel industry here, in Europe and the world over. That problem is being reviewed by the British Steel Corporation. Any decisions about any major plants will be taken not by the British Steel Corporation alone but with the Government. We prefer to look at the figures and the proposals placed before us before reaching a decision.
With regard to imports, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the other day. We are pressing the Commission for stronger measures of voluntary restraint with regard to importing steel into the Community. We are pressing the Community to uphold the agreements between the countries in the Community about quotas.

Mr. Foot: Will the Prime Minister say when some action will be taken to stop the flood of imports which


threaten the future of the whole of British Steel and of other sections of industry, such as the motor industry? On the question of the major plants, does the right hon. Lady know that Mr. MacGregor has already said that the future of Ravenscraig and the other plants rests with the Government? When will the Government make a statement to the effect that these plants will be sustained in the interests of British industry as a whole?

The Prime Minister: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that arrangements for the import of steel into the Community are made through the Community by way of voluntary restraint arrangements, and we are urging the Community to tighten those arrangements. Total import penetration of the United Kingdom steel market remains significantly lower than in a number of our European competitors. It is, nevertheless, very serious. However, action must be taken through the Community.
With regard to imports of cars, it would be wrong to put a protective barrier around the United Kingdom car industry. That would lead to inefficiency and loss of export markets. We try to have voluntary restraint agreements, such as the one with Japan, between motor car industries. The real protection, if I may put it that way, is for the industry to he competitive and to produce excellent cars.

Sir Bernard Braine: Despite her busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend's attention yet been drawn to the discovery in Argentina, in unmarked graves, of hundreds of victims of the Argentine junta? Is she aware that some 15,000 people at least disappeared from 1976 onwards? Is she taking any steps to ascertain whether, among these people, there have yet been found any bodies of the British subjects who disappeared during that time?

The Prime Minister: As I believe my hon. Friend knows, we have been in touch, for a number of years, with the Argentine Government, asking about the fate of certain British subjects. We are only too painfully aware of the human rights record of the Argentine Government, which is why, I believe, neither our country nor the House hesitated to free our own people in the Falklands from this tyranny.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: If British industry is now becoming so much more streamlined and competitive, as the Prime Minister claims, why are we now more vulnerable to imports than ever before?

The Prime Minister: British industry has become very much more competitive over the past year, but one year's improvement does not catch up with the many years of enormous increases in pay over production of the kind that took place when the right hon. Gentleman was in office.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Has the right hon. Lady noticed that those consequences of the Northern Ireland Act that were feared and predicted by those who, like herself, were opposed to it, have not been slow to appear? What are now her intentions?

The Prime Minister: The Act was a Government measure. The people having been elected under its provisions, the Assembly must be set up.

Gibraltar

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a further statement on the future of Gibraltar.

The Prime Minister: No new date has yet been set for implementing the Lisbon agreement. Future economic prospects in the light of continued Spanish restrictions and the closure of the naval dockyard were discussed by my noble Friend Lord Belstead, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when he visited Gibraltar from 21 to 23 July and again between my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and the Chief Minister on 24 September. We remain in close touch with Gibraltar on all aspects of her affairs.

Mr. Latham: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Government are proposing to announce the five-year capital aid programme for Gibraltar, which is already 18 months overdue? Will she ensure that it is devoted to specific capital projects and not a general grant-in-aid?

The Prime Minister: A development programme was submitted about 18 months ago. Decisions on that were changed when the question of the dockyard arose, and a revised programme was submitted last month. That is being urgently considered and we shall make decisions upon it as quickly as is humanly possible. In the meantime, as my hon. Friend knows, some £4 million was allocated to Gibraltar for urgent projects last December.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the Prime Minister take time today to deny reports—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a closed question.

Mr. McQuarrie: Bearing in mind the comments that my right hon. Friend has made about £4 million of capital aid, is she aware that only £2 million of that has so far been given to Gibraltar? Can she say when the further £2 million will be allocated to the territory?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the money was allocated to urgent projects. If there is a need for the other £2 million quickly, perhaps my hon. Friend will get in touch about the project for which it is needed.

Mr. Pavitt: At the conclusion of the Spanish general election, will the Prime Minister be making contact with the new Government about Gibraltar? Will she tell us whether that contact will be through the Foreign Secretary or through her new adviser at No. 10 Downing Street?

The Prime Minister: Following the Spanish general election we shall t e in touch with the new Government as is normal. No new adviser has been appointed to No. 10.

Engagements

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Proctor: During the course of my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she have the opportunity to see reports to the effect that 800 social workers employed by the Conservative-controlled Birmingham city council are on strike against the council's determination to get better value for money for the Birmingham ratepayer? Is this not disgraceful, and will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to urge these strikers to return to work forthwith?

The Prime Minister: I deplore the action taken by the council staff. It is in the interests of all ratepayers to get


the best value for money and to have as efficient a working operation as it is possible to achieve, which includes considering the possibility of putting out certain services to private contractors.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the Prime Minister take time today to deny the reports currently circulating to the effect that the Secretary of State for the Environment is planning a further increase in council house rents of £2 per week, and that he is deliberately delaying a decision until after the by-elections at Northfield and Peckham?

The Prime Minister: Public expenditure decisions for next year have not yet been made.

Mrs. Knight: During the course of my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she consider the position in Birmingham, where the city council's treasurer's department is refusing to pay money owed by it to small business men, suppliers and contractors? Will she comment on that matter, which is putting many small businesses at grave risk and undoubtedly increasing the danger of further unemployment?

The Prime Minister: Prompt payment should be the usual rule. It is especially important to ensure that it is

adhered to in the case of small businesses. I join my hon. Friend in making an appeal for payment to be made immediately.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) asked the Prime Minister why she did not meet representatives of the triple alliance—which represents hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland—this morning, she failed to give the House an answer. Why did she not meet them?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given only brief notice of a point of order about the rights of the House, on which I seek your guidance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice from another hon. Member that he intends to raise the same point of order. I propose to deal with it following an application under Standing Order No. 9, which is the usual time to deal with such matters.

Great Ormond Street Hospital

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed closure for lack of funds of 60 beds out of 360 in the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children.
The proposed closure is important because the number of children in intensive care in that hospital will be reduced from 40 to 22. That means a rolling death sentence through the months and years to come for 20 sick children who cannot survive without intensive care. The proposal affects children not only from my constituency but throughout Britain, because the sickest children are referred to that hospital from all parts of the country.
Despite the heartless departure of the Prime Minister from the Chamber, the matter remains urgent, because the beds are due to close next Monday. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree to an emergency debate, so that the necessary funds can be made available and the Ministers who prate about National Health Service staff putting lives at risk will have to come to the House and accept their responsibility for killing children who should be given the opportunity to make the best use of the facilities at Britain's premier children's hospital. We must ensure that the hospital remains open to its full capacity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) gave me notice this morning, before 12 o'clock, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed closure for lack of funds of 60 beds out of 360 in the Great Onnond Street Hospital for Sick Children.
The House listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's statement. I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Statutory Instruments (Debate)

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments met to consider a Prayer in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. A vote took place at the end of the proceedings in which the Government were defeated. I raise this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, because the Government have placed the House in some difficulty. They have given the House the choice of either having a debate on the important matter of student grants in Standing Committee—where any vote taken would have no effect—or to have no debate at all, unless the Leader of the House does us the courtesy of providing time to enable the necessary motion to be moved.
In the past, many assurances have been given from the Dispatch Box that, for matters of controversy and

contention, time will be allowed for such Prayers to be debated. Those assurances are on record, and apply to successive Leaders of the House. Is there some way in which a further assurance can be exacted from the Leader of the House? If not, can the matter be taken before the Procedure Committee so that such matters of controversy—especially when the Government have been defeated in a vote—can be debated on the Floor of the House, when there can be a substantive vote?

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that this is a matter concerning the rights of the House. When a Committee has found a statutory instrument profoundly unsatisfactory and voted it down, and taking into account the fact that the Leader of the House had previously given undertakings that student grants should be debated on the Floor, it is incumbent upon the House, if its rights are to be protected, to place a motion on the Order Paper giving the House an opportunity to vote on the repeal of the statutory instrument before Prorogation tomorrow.

Mr. George Cunningham: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, and the Leader of the House, will recollect that several years ago the Procedure Committee recommended that a special procedure be used for dealing with such matters, which would result in a matter that was defeated in Standing Committee having to be considered on the Floor of the House. Is it not appropriate that the Leader of the House should arrange such a debate, especially as the debate in Committee this morning brought out the fact that the regulations do not have the legal consequences that the Government thought they had before this morning's debate?

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the House cannot make a statement today, should he not do so tomorrow? I know that this is not a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, but as there is such concern about the issue, and because of the undertakings given about student grants over some considerable period, I hope that the Leader of the House will make a statement tomorrow, if not today.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of he House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): If it will help the House, I shall consider the points that have been raised.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House has made his statement. I shall briefly say, in answer to the point of order of which I had notice—[Interruption.] I am giving an answer. I understand that the time during which a Prayer could be put down against the regulations has expired. For that reason, the provisions of paragraph 5 of Standing Order No. 73A do not apply, and there is no action that I can take as Speaker.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to the point of order. Can I get the matter clear? Unless I misheard the Leader of the House, he gave no undertaking to make a statement in the House tomorrow. Will he now give that specific undertaking?

Mr. Biffen: It is certainly my intention to consider the matters that have been raised. I take account of the anxiety of the House that a statement should be made tomorrow.

Concessionary Television Licences for Old Age Pensioners

Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for concessionary television licences for old age pensioners.
The Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) Regulations 1970, as extended—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman wait for a moment? The House will then do greater justice to his arguments—perhaps.

Mr. McKay: The Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) Regulations 1970, as extended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) when he was Home Secretary, provide welcome relief for about half a million senior citizens, to whom television is a necessity of life. It provides entertainment, companionship and a sense of security for people who live alone. It is a way of keeping up with news, both local and national, because the people of whom we are talking often cannot afford to buy newspapers. The existing scheme of concessionary television licences for old people is unfair to the majority of them, particularly those who are isolated within the community, causing animosity and bitterness among pensioners themselves.
We need an equitable system of concessionary television licensing for all persons of pensionable age. Without doubt, the right approach would be to make and maintain an improvement in pensions, supplementary benefits, or other income maintenance. In that way, the recipients could afford to sustain a reasonable standard of living, according to their own choice and needs, having a large enough income to meet the cost of the television licence. However, until that happy time comes, it is necessary to have a concessionary scheme, and that scheme has to be fair and equitable to all.
The present national scheme does not take account of the fact that a large number of old people who, by reason of their accommodation, do not come within that scheme, are living in circumstances which are little different from those of people who are eligible under the scheme, yet they have to pay the licence fee in full. While approximately half a million people receive the 5p licence, 4½ million people have to pay the full cost. Some of those people are in public sector accommodation, but most are in privately owned or privately rented accommodation. Clearly, that is inequitable. It has been a matter of concern to many right hon. and hon. Members and organisations, both local and national, for many years. Some people have had to change from colour to black and white television, and even to dispense with television altogether. The problem may be more acute with the advent of cable television and more prohibitive costs.
There are anomalies in the scheme itself. For instance, in my constituency, where two-tier flats have been built, only the lower tier has been designated for old people's dwellings. I know an 84-year-old woman who has to pay the full cost of the licence, while her daughter, who lives below her, pays only 5p.
Further differences have been caused by local authorities seeking to remedy the anomalies by giving subsidies to old people not receiving the 5p licence. My

constituency lies within two district councils, Barnsley and Sheffield. Four years ago, Barnsley gave a subsidy of £7, but because of stringencies and Government cuts, it had to reduce that subsidy to £4·50. The cost is about £70,000 a year. As yet, Sheffield has not provided a subsidy.
It appears that the criteria providing a broad interpretation of who should receive the licence have been tightened. It means that many people who used to receive the 5p licence now do not do so. In one constituency old people living in one type of dwelling receive the 5p licence, while old people across the road, living in the same type of dwelling, have to pay the full cost, simply because the warden who visits them has to cross the road. That is the criterion. People in warden-visited dwellings have the same problem. Pensioners who live on the Barnsley side of my constituency who do not receive the 5p licence get a subsidy, while people who live on the Sheffield side do not receive it.
It would cost about £250 million to protect the existing recipients and extend the scheme to all pensioners. That sum could be raised by increasing basic tax by one third of a penny. That is all that we are talking about—one third of a penny, or increasing VAT by 0·4 per cent. The Government raised VAT to 15 per cent. from 8 per cent., so I am sure that 0·4 per cent. would not be difficult.
However, that would not be the end of the problem, because the national scheme does not extend to disabled and handicapped people who live in accommodation similar to that in which elderly people live and receive the licence. Their social need for a television is just as great. Instances of prosecution of disabled occupants of local authority residential homes for use of an unlicensed privately owned receiver have occurred.
My Bill is a first step in an effort to put the matter right, by providing all old people with concessionary licensing. The Government might find it better to dispense with television licensing altogether, and thus avoid all anomalies. That would cost £670 million—1 per cent. on VAT or 0·7p on the standard rate of tax.
The Labour Government promised to phase out television licences, and I trust that the Labour Party's manifesto this time will include that proposal. If this Government provide the opportunity, they could do the same. My Bill, if allowed to proceed, will provide an opportunity to explore all the anomalies and the means of paying for licences. It will provide a more fair and equitable scheme.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman rising to oppose the motion?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I oppose the Bill because, in my opinion, it does not go far enough. Hon. Members, particularly those on the Conservative Benches who have opposed this issue in the past, should have an opportunity to cast their votes. By-elections are pending, and I am sure that the electorate would like to know hon. Members' views on this vital issue. I therefore oppose the Bill because it does not go far enough.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), he is only putting his little toe in the water, instead of jumping right in. He may believe, of


course, that putting his little toe in the water is as much as the government will accept. However, both the Government Front Bench and their supporters and the Opposition and their supporters should have an opportunity to vote on that matter. I therefore oppose the Bill in the hope that we shall have a vote.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 0.

Division No. 326] 
[3.50 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allaun, Frank
Forrester, John


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Freud, Clement


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Gourley, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bennett. Andrew(St'kp't N)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Tom
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Homewood, William


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hooley, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Callaghan, Jim .(Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Canavan, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lambie, David


Conlan, Bernard
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin F.
Leadbitter, Ted


Cowans, Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Crowther, Stan
Litherland, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L 'lli)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
McMahon, Andrew


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McTaggart, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Marks, Kenneth


Dickens, Geoffrey
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dubs, Alfred
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnett, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mikardo, Ian


Eadie, Alex
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morton, George


Ewing, Harry
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Fitch, Alan
Newens, Stanley





O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Palmer, Arthur
Straw, Jack


Park, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Parker, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Parry, Robert
Tinn, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Pendry, Tom
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Race, Reg
Wardell, Gareth


Radice, Giles
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Sandelson, Neville
White, Frank R.


Sever, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Sheerman, Barry
Whitlock, William


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Short, Mrs Renée
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Winnick, David


Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Snape, Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spriggs, Leslie



Stallard, A. W.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Stoddart, David
Mr. Alec Woodall




NOES


Nil


Tellers for the Noes:



Miss Sheila Wright and



Mr. Arthur Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Alec Woodall, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Michael Welsh, Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Derek Foster and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR OLD AGE PENSIONERS

Mr. Allen McKay accordingly presented a Bill to provide for concessionary television licences for old age pensioners; And the same was read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Hon. Members: Now.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, that is not allowed.

Mr. McKay: Tomorrow. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must abide by the rules of the House.

Bill ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 39, it appears that you have the discretion to decide whether the word "now" should be included in the reading of the Bill. If that is the case, and given the overwhelming vote for the measure, in spite of the hard-hearted Government not supporting it, there is an opportunity for us to deal with the legislation now. Under Standing Order No. 40, there is a provision to take the Committee stage without further notice. In view of the demands by pensioners for this facility, I believe that that is the way the House should proceed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) has now given notice that Second Reading will take place tomorrow.

Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot remember an occasion when after a Division there has been a unanimous vote such as this. I am sure that the Leader of the House has taken note of this important expression of opinion. Would it be proper for the Leader of the House to make a statement now and to inform the House that he is prepared either to expedite the Bill's passage this Session or, if he cannot do that, at the very least to give an assurance that it will be contained in the Gracious Speech next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Alas, I can give none of those assurances, and I am innately so conservative that I would not wish any radical innovation in our procedures to take place within the last 48 hours of the Session.

Sir Anthony Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the last 10 minutes, there has been a slightly unsavoury episode in the House. After the Bill was moved and presented, it was quite obvious that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), an old colleague of mine, was having fun and indulging—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must interrupt him. I do not think that is a point of order. The hon. Member for Newham, NorthWest (Mr. Lewis) was exercising his parliamentary right. We would be well advised to proceed to the next interesting item which is a money resolution.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the word "unsavoury" has been used by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir A. Fell), is it not unsavoury for a situation to develop—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Where I come from the word "unsavoury" means something different from what the hon. Gentleman is thinking. That is not a point of order, and I believe that we should now continue with the next business.

Mr. D. N Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not take any more points of order on this subject.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On something entirely different?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was indicated to you that you had some discretion. Is it not significant that over the last year those of us who have attended many Second Readings and Report stages have noticed that Government legislation and resolutions have gone through on majorities substantially less than the majority that this Bill gained—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot reopen that question now. It has been settled by a ruling that I gave a short while ago.

Transport [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the disposal by the National Bus Company and their subsidiaries of property, rights and liabilities, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making payments under any provision of that Act in respect of the examination of applicants for medical certificates required as a condition of any exception prescribed by regulations under section 33A or 33B of the Road Traffic Act 1972, being applicants falling within any class listed below or specified by order under that provision.

The classes referred to above are—
  
(a) those in receipt of—

(i)attendance allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975;
(ii)mobility allowance under section 37A of that Act;
(iii)disablement pension under section 57 of that Act at a weekly rate increased by virtue of section 61(1) of that Act; or
(iv) an allowance under article 14 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Services Pensions Order 1978;


(b) those in receipt of—
(i)family income supplement; or
(ii)any benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976;

and their dependants;

(c) those provided with invalid carriages or other vehicles under subsection (1) of section 46 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or in receipt of grants under subsection (3) of that section in respect of invalid carriages or other vehicles which belong to them; and

(d) those whose names are in the register of disabled persons maintained under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

Many hon. Members know that only two money provisions with public expenditure implications were in the Transport Bill when it was originally introduced. The two new proposed provisions relate to part IV. The first would enable the Secretary of State to make payments in respect of the medical examination made free to applicants for the certificate of exemption from compulsory seat belt wearing. The second provision would enable the subsequent Order in Council containing similar powers to be made for Northern Ireland, subject to negative resolution. As this would be a continuing service, it would not be proper for the expenditure to be covered by the Appropriation Acts.

The first paragraph of the money resolution seeks authority for the Secretary of State to make these payments. The second paragraph sets out the classes of applicants for exemption which will be eligible for the free examinations. This follows the Lords amendment exactly.

I recognise that it is unfortunate that such a provision was not put forward when the Bill was considered earlier by the House, but that was because the need for such a scheme was not then apparent. The timetable to commence seat belt wearing means that amendments to the list of those eligible are not possible. When Parliament approved the seat belt regulations in July, the Government were pressed to introduce compulsion as soon as possible, and, indeed, the regulations will come into effect on 31 January.

An essential part of the preparation is to allow people time to apply for medical exemption. That is why we need


the money resolution, and I know that that is agreed on both sides of the House. I appreciate that some hon. Members may wish to comment on this, but I commend the money resolution to the House because it enables as many as 7 million potential applicants to benefit from a free medical test if they seek exemption from compulsory seat belt wearing.

I know that some hon. Members would like us to do more, but we cannot. If they were to reject this money resolution, it would achieve the very opposite of what they intend. Therefore, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Albert Booth: I oppose the money resolution on a number of grounds. First, ostensibly the resolution quite unreasonably excludes a category of people that I believe should be contained in the classes that can receive financial assistance from the Secretary of State to meet the necessary cost of gaining a certificate of medical exemption from the wearing of seat belts. I make no comments on the merits of the general provisions in relation to the wearing of seat belts. My argument in no way turns upon that.
Those hon. Members who have examined the money resolution will see that those in receipt of an attendance allowance, mobility allowance, disablement pension, a naval, military or air force disablement pension—even a death pension, presumably widows or dependants—those in receipt of family income supplement, supplementary benefit, including their dependants, those provided with invalid carriages and the registered disabled will be entitled to have their medical fees paid by the Secretary of State. My objection is that the list does not contain those whose sole income is the old-age pension. Many people on low incomes, in receipt of Government aid or pensions are covered. Therefore, it is inequitable that those whose sole income is the old-age pension should not also be covered.
My second objection is that we have no way of calculating the maximum cost of such a provision, as the Secretary of State has singularly failed to use the powers that his predecessor sought in the 1981 Act. Section 27 of that Act contains a specific provision in relation to the wearing of seat belts in cars to enable the Secretary of State to determine cases in which a prescribed amount may be charged on an application for any certificate required as the condition of any prescribed exemption. I challenge any hon. Member to suggest that that does not cover an exemption from wearing the seat belt on medical grounds.
Clearly, the Government sought the power—I have no objection to that—to make regulations concerning the prescribed fees. However, my objection is that the Secretary of State has not used the powers granted to him by the House, and that directly bears on the financial effect of the money resolution. I do not claim that it is a precedent, but it is remarkable that the proposal to change the financial scope of the Bill should come from a House that supposedly has no financial powers. Therefore, we should examine the money resolution all the more carefully.
I believe that I was justified in saying that exclusion has only an ostensible effect. Lords amendment No. 87, which will be brought into play by the money resolution, gives the Secretary of State the power either to add to or subtract from the list of those who may obtain help with fees for exemption certificates. If the Lords amendment and the

money resolution are accepted, the Secretary of State could decide to delete or add to any of those categories when he makes the regulations. The Government have a simple remedy if they wish to meet that point. They can give an assurance here and now that, in making the regulations, the Secretary of State will use the power that he receives from that Lords amendment to include old-age pensioners in the categories of those who will be exempted.
On those grounds, I hope that I shall have the support of the House in pressing the Government—if they secure the money resolution—to use it equitably and fairly in respect of old-age pensioners, just as it is to be used for the other categories who will benefit from payments made as a result of the money resolution to assist them in paying the medical fees for exemption certificates.

Mr. John Wells: I accept that the money resolution is necessary if the Bill is to have effect from 1 January. However, I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State still has to see the driving instructors about their concerns. Can she give any assurances about the points that they are likely to raise?

Mrs. Chalker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is beyond the scope of the money resolution.

Mr. Peter Fry: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are grave doubts about whether the exemption certificates can be issued on the due date? Before the money resolution is approved, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the apparent—I stress that word—delay in the issuing of exemption certificates by Government employees will not result in those who are genuinely entitled to exemption certificates being unable to get them and, therefore, being liable to prosecution? I have written to my hon. Friend on that point, hut it is important that it should be clarified before the money resolution is approved.

Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said something that I do not believe he meant to say and I should like it to be correct in Hansard. I refer to the fact that the money resolution applies not to the widows and dependants of Service men but only to Servic,7 men with war pensions on a constant attendance allowances. I wish to make that point clear, so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the public.
At the end of my speech I hope that I made it clear that if the right hon. Gentleman should succeed in opposing the money resolution the categories delineated by it will be unable to obtain a free examination through the DHSS medical service and, as a result, they will fail to obtain the very help that all hon. Members intended that they should receive.
The right hon. Gentleman said that one of his grounds for opposing the money resolution was the failure to include 8·8 million pensioners in the categories covered by automatic free medical testing, if necessary. However, of those 8·8 million, 1·6 million are covered as they are beneficiaries of a supplementary pension. Those over 65 who cannot claim mobility allowance would cost a great deal more—about £450 million—and the DHSS medical service simply does not have the resources to test 8.8 million, or 8·8 million less 1·6 million pensioners. Those are the figures that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about.
When I had to decide who should be included in the list, I did not consider only the financial cost. Those pensioners who are in greatest need are already covered by a supplementary pension and, therefore, by the money resolution. I decided that priority should be given to those disabled people who need transport for their work. That seems to be a crucial area for help.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness asked me about the costs. In the revised estimates for 1982–83 a sum of £300,000 for England, and pro rata sums for Scotland and Wales, have been set aside. It is too early to tell the right hon. Gentleman whether demand will match that estimated cost. However, there is a physical limit to the numbers that the DHSS can examine, and the present provision of 1,000 examinations a week in the forthcoming months should ensure that those who need free examinations receive them. To go further than that would prejudice the beginning of a valuable scheme.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness commented on our failure to use the 1981 Act. That Act can prescribe a fee that doctors can charge. Those who follow our proceedings will be aware that the British Medical Association has recommended to its doctors that they charge a fee of £19 for a full medical examination. It has also said that if a doctor decides not to charge that amount, there is no reason why he should do so. Sometimes hon. Members are greatly concerned about certain members of the medical profession. Happily, they are a minority. We knew that if we prescribed the fee the BMA would not be prepared to co-operate. We believed that it was more important to save lives by introducing the compulsory wearing of seat belts, so we had to find another way of helping those on low incomes who might need to be exempted. That is why, at an earlier stage, I put forward certain suggestions.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not like provisions that stemmed from the other place. He has intimated that it is not proper that the other place should require us to move a money resolution at this stage. However, on 29 October 1975, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State, Department of Employment, he moved a money resolution to the Employment Protection Bill. The then Opposition agreed to it on the nod, because they thought it important that the provisions in that Bill should be given the financial wherewithal. The measure also involved an entitlement to unemployment benefit, maternity pay and maternity pay rebates. We considered it sensible that the right hon. Gentleman should do exactly what we are doing tonight in moving the money resolution to facilitate a Government and parliamentary decision that is agreed on both sides of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is in doubt about that occasion, he should refer to column 1608 of Hansard.
The right hon. Gentleman then mentioned the Lords amendment, and whether there would be subtractions from the list contained in the money resolution and Lords amendment No. 87, should the House pass it. Additions to or subtractions from the list contained in amendment No. 87 could only be made by order of the House. That

is why the regulations come before the House. There are no simple remedies. One must proceed in the way that I have sought to take the Bill through the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness will be reassured that there is nothing to be gained, and a terrible amount to be lost, if he opposes the money resolution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) asked a question that was outside the scope of the money resolution. I assure him that I am meeting the driving instructors, and that he need have no fear on that score.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was worried that some doctors might not have the medical exemption certificates that people would require if they were to be exempted under the guidelines set down by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. The certificates have been sent to every family practitioner committee. If they have not been sent to any individual doctor, I assure my hon. Friend that they are available from the DHSS store. If he has any specific cases in mind, perhaps he will see that we know about them so that we can ensure that the system works as smoothly as it seems set fair to do.
I hope that I have satisfactorily answered hon. Members questions. If the House opposes the money resolution, it will deprive about 10 per cent. of the 7 million people who are likely to be eligible for free medical examinations leading to medical exemption. That would be a great shame and a pity for everyone who wants to save lives by getting the majority to wear seat belts.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the disposal by the National Bus Company and their subsidiaries of property, rights and liabilities, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making payments under any provision of that Act in respect of the examination of applicants for medical certificates required as a condition of any exception prescribed by regulations under section 33A or 33B of the Road Traffic Act 1972, being applicants falling within any class listed below or specified by order under that provision.

The classes referred to above are—

(a) those in receipt of—

(i)attendance allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975;
(ii)mobility allowance under section 37A of that Act;
(iii)disablement pension under section 57 of that Act at a weekly rate increased by virtue of section 61(1) of that Act; or
(iv)an allowance under article 14 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Services Pensions Order 1978;

(b) those in receipt of—

(i)family income supplement; or
(ii)any benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976;

and their dependants;

(c) those provided with invalid carriages or other vehicles under subsection (1) of section 46 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or in receipt of grants under subsection (3) of that section in respect of invalid carriages or other vehicles which belong to them; and

(d) those whose names are in the register of disabled persons maintained under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3

POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO GIVE DIRECTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 33, at end insert "Bus".

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is purely technical, and designed to correct a slip in the drafting. The mistake arose when amendments Nos. 7 and 8 were agreed to on Report. The amendments, which were intended to meet points raised by the Opposition, provided for the Secretary of State to consult the county councils in appropriate cases before issuing a direction to the bus company. As a result of the amendments the word "Bus" was inadvertently left out of the description of the company. "Bus Company" is the term used in major references throughout part I. It is defined in clause 7.

Mr. Albert Booth: I hope that I was not previously represented as being unduly critical of another place. Lords amendment No. 1 suggests that the other place has done public transport interests a singular disservice by drawing what is almost a fatal defect in part I of the Bill to the Government's attention. Had the amendment not been tabled, it would have been impossible for the Secretary of State to use the powers provided under clause 3 to direct the bus company. We should reject the Lords amendment knowing that by doing so we shall deny the Secretary of State power to issue instructions to the National Bus Company.
It is clearer now than when the Bill was last before the House that the Secretary of State intends to use the powers provided under clause 3 to instruct the National Bus Company to sell off two types of operation—first, its highly profitable long-distance coaching services and, second, its holiday services. We are not only worried about the loss of a further valuable, profitable, publicly owned industry, we are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. We are dealing with a Lords amendment which is basically a drafting amendment. It is not in order to open up a wide debate on the major issue of the bus company. We are dealing with one amendment that inserts the word "Bus".

Mr. Booth: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I did not explain the scope within which I was working. I intended to be extremely careful to show the balance of the argument. Clause 7—the interpretation clause—as presently drafted states that "the Bus Company" means "the National. Bus Company". That is to be found in line 24 on page 6 of the Bill.
Unless the Lords amendment is carried, clause 3 cannot possibly bite upon the National Bus Company. The Lords amendment enables the Secretary of State to give

instructions to the National Bus Company under clause 3. If one is opposed to the Secretary of State giving such instructions, it must be in order to develop arguments as to why it would be wrong for him to have the power to give such instructions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the rules of the House. The amendment relates to page 3, line 33, to insert the word "Bus" into clause 3. We read "the Bus Company" throughout the rest of clause 3. We must confine our debate to whether the word "Bus" should be inserted before the word "Company".

Mr. Booth: Precisely. If the word "Bus" is not in subsection (1), the power for the Secretary of State to give instructions is circumscribed within the clause. As the Minister fairly pointed out, the remainder of the clause deals with consultations about instructions to the bus company. The clause gives the Secretary of State power to give a direction, and if one amends that to "Bus Company" it has a clear and specific meaning derived from the interpretation in clause 7.
If we amend the clause to read "Bus Company", we are unquestionably giving a power to the Secretary of State to instruct the National Bus Company. If the House rejects the Lords amendment it will be contended that the Bill does not give such a power. It could be challenged by the National Bus Company in the courts that the Bill gives the Secretary of State a power to direct it. That is important because of certain developments that have taken place between the time of the Bill leaving and returning to the House. The Secretary of State has proceeded on the assumption, presumably, that the Lords amendment would be carried. If that is so, the House must surely have the right to debate the amendment before deciding whether the Secretary of State is to be given such a power.
The Secretary of State could not possibly have such a power until the Bill becomes law. If the Bill becomes law without the Lords amendment, he will not have the power to direct the bus company. I want to argue briefly why he should not have such a power.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is basically a drafting amendment? The right way to register his objection would be for him to advise his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Booth: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends accordingly.
If the amendment is carried, it will make it clear beyond peradventure that the Secretary of State has the power to direct the National Bus Company under the definition in clause 7. If he so directs, as he has said and as we believe he is proceeding in his discussions with the NBC to do, it will mean a considerable loss of profitability from the sections that are sold off. The money is currently used to subsidise extensive stage carriage operations which are desperately required in a number of parts of the country.
If the amendment is carried, it will also raise the question for the House about whether the loss is to be made up by transport supplementary grant. The signs are that it will not be.
The extraction of the coaching services, which will be possible if the Lords amendrnent is carried, would make


a number of valuable joint services uneconomic. Over the past year the stage passenger mileage has fallen substantially. The company's coaching operations have risen enormously from 46 million service miles in the financial year 1980–81 to 62 million.
I call on all hon. Members to oppose the Lords amendment.

Mrs. Chalker: I repeat that this is a drafting amendment. At an earlier stage the provisions for consultation with the National Bus Company were written into the Bill. Part I of the Bill is all about the NBC. The Secretary of State must have the power to require it to exercise its powers under sections 1 and 2 of the Act.
The problems that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is worried about account for only 1½ per cent. of the group's working profit. From his comments one would have thought that the sum was much greater.

Mr. Peter Fry: Are there not individual companies within the group where the figure is much higher? One example is Southdown, where coaching makes a considerable contribution to overall profit. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are aware of that fact and that it will be taken into consideration in any future allocation of TSG?

Mrs. Chalker: We are aware of the significant variations in different parts of the country. But the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the express and holiday sectors, and the figure for that is 1½ per cent. of the group's working profit.
Having taken a power to consult, we are in a better position to consider individual needs in the NBC's operations in different parts of the country.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. James Lamond: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to draw to your attention the fact that on the way to the Division from the Upper Committee Floor and in very good time to be here to vote the lift stuck with seven hon. Members inside. I wonder whether there is anything that can be done to ensure that those of us who were inadvertently prevented from voting are able to vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): If that is so—I must take it as being so as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter—the only solution is to have the Division again. Is that the wish of the House?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that if the two "usual channels" agree, it is possible for you to insert the hon. Members' names in the Division list without wasting the time of the House on another vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no power to direct that names be entered if hon. Members have not voted. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to press the issue, the only solution is to have the Division again. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to press the issue?

Mr. Lamond: (seated and covered): Since a number of votes will have to be taken this evening which will take a good deal of time, I am prepared not to press the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.

The House having divided: Ayes 279, Noes 196.

Division No. 327] 
[4.35 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Alton, David
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Farr, John


Ancram, Michael
Fell, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Banks, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beith, A. J.
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fry, Peter


Best, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blackburn, John
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Blaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Gorst, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gray, Hamish


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Brinton, Tim
Grist, Ian


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Grylls, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Antony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawksley, Warren


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hayhoe, Barney


Butcher, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Howells, Geraint


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Costain, Sir Albert
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Denshore
Kaberry, Sir Donald


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel






Lee, John
Rost, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp;W'loo)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

 
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard


McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Smith, Dudley


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Speed, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Speller, Tony


Major, John
Spence, John


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Antony
Sproat, lain


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stainton, Keith


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stanley, John


Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Martin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moore, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morgan, Geraint
 Thompson, Donald


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Myles, David
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Onslow, Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wakeham, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Parris, Matthew
Wall, Sir Patrick


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pitt, William Henry
Wheeler, John


Pollock, Alexander
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Porter, Barry
Whitney, Raymond


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Wickenden, Keith


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wiggin, Jerry


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Renton, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian



Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Carol Mather.


Rossi, Hugh





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A.T.


Adams, Allen
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashley, Rt Hor Jack
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert





Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kerr, Russell


Buchan, Norman
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lestor, Miss Joan


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cant, R. B.
Litherland, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hug


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cohen, Stanley
McKelvey, William


Coleman, Donald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McMahon, Andrew


Conlan, Bernard
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Robin F.
Marks, Kenneth


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Davidson, Arthur
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Douglas, Dick
Morton, George


Dubs, Alfred
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Dunnett, Jack
Newens, Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eadie, Alex
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Palmer, Arthur


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Parker, John


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Parry, Robert


English, Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Pendry, Tom


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Evans, John (Newton)
Prescott, John


Ewing, Harry
Race, Reg


Fitch, Alan
Richardson, Jo



Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Ford, Ben
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Forrester, John
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Foster, Derek
Rooker, J. W.


Foulkes, George
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Rowlands, Ted


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sever, John


George, Bruce
Sheerman, Barry


Golding, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gourlay, Harry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Graham, Ted
Short, Mrs Renée


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Stallard, A. W.


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Home Robertson, John
Stoddart, David


Homewood, William
Stott, Roger


Hooley, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Straw, Jack


Huckfield, Les
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Tilley, John


John, Brynmor
Tinn, James






Torney, Tom
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Wardell, Gareth
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Winnick, David


Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Woodall, Alec


Watkins, David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Welsh, Michael
Wright, Sheila


White, Frank R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


White, J. (G'gow Pollok)



Whitehead, Phillip
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitlock, William
Mr. James Hamilton and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9

THE TESTING AND SURVEILLANCE FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 8, line 36, leave out "(where appropriate)".

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 121.

Mrs. Chalker: Amendment No. 4 deletes a provision which has caused some concern. I should like to make it clear why the Government have made this amendment, because it is for purely technical reasons.
The provision which this amendment deletes was intended to allow the Secretary of State to transfer to authorised inspectors further functions which appear to him to be connected with the testing functions listed in clause 9. The original thinking behind this was that the Secretary of State would want to authorise inspectors to carry out such functions which were related to existing statutory functions but which were not themselves the subject of statute—such as the issue of plates to goods vehicles; and that he might want to transfer further minor or ancillary statutory functions to authorised inspectors. It was thought that the provision would allow this to be done.
I should like to make it clear that this provision was not intended to allow the approved testing authority to conduct related commercial activities, and the deletion of the subparagraph makes no difference to the position in that respect. The amendment therefore is not about ruling out commercial activities. What it does is to delete a provision which I am now advised was simply unnecessary and had no substantive effect.
The other two amendments are merely consequential changes to the drafting of another part of clause 9 and of schedule 5. I hope that this explains the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 9, line 41, at end insert—
The carrying out or supervision of examinations and the issue or refusal of certificates under section 10 (certificates of conformity to type for public service vehicles).

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9, the amendment to the proposed Lords amendment No. 9, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), and Lords amendments Nos 18 to 21, 120 and 122.

Mrs. Chalker: I would not want the House to believe that the length of these amendments indicates a substantial revision of the Bill. They do not. In fact they leave the Bill almost unaltered, but they make a sensible addition to the list of functions which may be carried out by the approved testing authority and its inspectors. This is the type certification of passenger service vehicles that may be useful in special circumstances. As there is much for the House to get through tonight, I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with this assurance. I shall, of course, be happy to elaborate further or to answer any points of detail that may be raised.

Mr. Booth: I wish to speak to my proposed amendment to Lords amendment No. 9.
The Minister says that the only substantial change in this set of amendments is a sensible increase in the functions that may be allocated from Government test centres to private operators. The Opposition's view expressed in our amendment is to the contrary in the sense that we believe that the one addition to the functions that can be transferred is significant. It should certainly be retained in Government hands.
The Lords amendment would alter section 10 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in such a way as to enable type approval to be carried out by a prescribed testing authority. I do not wish to enter into the mechanics of how test authorities prescribe. It is sufficient for the purposes of the case that I wish to deploy to say that the authority prescribed would, by the nature of the Lords amendment, have to be something other than a Government test station, or a station solely in control of the Government and of Department of Transport officials. It would be a place that could then proceed to deal with type approval.
It is my contention that type approval is important in the whole issue of public service vehicles safety and that it is of the utmost importance that there should be the highest standards, the greatest impartiality and total freedom from any vested financial interests in the outcome unduly influencing a decision. Once a vehicle is type approved, although it is subject to annual tests and may be tested to see whether certain aspects of the vehicle comply with the construction and use regulations, it is nevertheless deemed to be a type that is safe to be used on the roads. Any additional number can be made and sold without anyone being able to challenge the basic presumption that the vehicles are safe unless the Secretary of State, having learnt that umpteen of them have crashed due to a basic design defect, withdraws the type approval.
Incidentally, if a function could be transferred by the amendment to the prescribed authority, it means that the prescribed authority would be allowed to withdraw the type approval. Our view is that withdrawal in those circumstances would show a serious defect in the initial type approval procedure. We have to be as sure as is humanly possible that initial type approval checks out every aspect of a vehicle that might contribute intrinsically to its safety for the purpose of carrying passengers.
I turn now to the financial interests involved in type approval. The first financial interest is clearly that of the manufacturer. The manufacturer of a bus wants to sell the bus. He wants to sell it as widely as possible and therefore has a clear and proper interest in the sense of being able to sell it and secure type approval. The operator who wishes to buy the bus has a clear concern that the vehicle


is type approved and that once it is approved that approval will not be withdrawn. If it is withdrawn, he has vehicles on his hands that he cannot use for carrying passengers.
The operator is concerned about other aspects of finance that relate to type approval. He is concerned to obtain the vehicle with the cheapest operating costs. At a time when a number of coach companies have gone bankrupt, this is an important consideration. The operator is also concerned about the maintenance costs of the vehicle and about its initial cost. Any combination of these things may be determined by initial design and thereby caught up on the whole question of type approval.
The Opposition see another difficulty in turning over type approval to a prescribed authority, being someone other than a Government-run test station with the highest technical standards and high standards of impartiality. Foreign vehicles and buses used on our roads have to go through our type approval procedure. There has been a considerable rise in recent years in the number of foreign vehicles operating on British roads. Buses are produced in a number of European and Scandinavian countries. I make no reflection upon them. They are, undoubtedly, produced, in the first instance, to meet the requirements of their own country. A wider market is then sought.
The manufacturers, like the operators, are subject to the financial considerations that I have mentioned. Whatever else we may feel about turning over other test functions to the private sector—the Opposition have many objections—it is most unfortunate that at this late stage of the Bill we should come to consider another extension of functions to be transferred. I hope that the House will support our amendment to the Lords amendment.
Our amendment is a compromise. If carried, it would not prevent the Secretary of State turning over type approval to another body. It would, however, ensure that if he took such action he would only be able to turn it over to another body that did not engage in any other form of commercial activity. This is the minimum protection that the House should attach to such a transfer of provisions. I hope, therefore, that our amendment commends itself to the House.

Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that type approval is what I would term the birth certificate of a vehicle. I must emphasise that the Lords amendment that he seeks to amend interferes in no way with the annual testing of public service vehicles. The right hon. Gentleman made some remarks about financial interests and foreign vehicles. Clause 9 already provides for type approval to be carried out by authorised inspectors. Some public service vehicles—they are a minority—are very much a standard type which can conveniently be certified in batches just as type approval operates on motor cars.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about conflicting financial interests but his anxieties over foreign vehicles are misplaced. If there is any doubt about safety, they will not have type approval whether this is operated by my Department or by a body authorised to undertake not only type approval but also the annual testing of public service vehicles. The right hon. Gentleman's anxieties are unfounded. His amendment is not correctly drafted but that is a minor point in relation to his concern for safe vehicles. My concern is also for safe vehicles. We would not be asking the House to agree to Lords amendment No. 9 authorising a separate body, such as Lloyd's Register

Vehicle Testing Authority, unless we were in a position to say that it was going to a body with no commercial interest and a body in whose integrity the Government had total confidence.
5 pm
It will not have escaped the notice of right hon. Gentlemen that the final say on who does the work does not rest on a whim of the Government. Parliament must approve not only the testing authority but the functions that it must carry out. Therefore, the House will have the final say. I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the right hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to Lords amendment No. 9.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 8 agreed to.

New Clause

APPROVAL OF PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES AS TYPE VEHICLES BY PRESCRIBED TESTING AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 9. after clause 10, insert— "—(1) In section 10 of the 1981 Act (approval of public service vehicle as a type vehicle and issue of certificates of conformity to type)—

(a) in subsections (1) and (2), after the words 'the Secretary of State' there shall be inserted the words 'or the prescribed testing authority' ;
(b) in subsection (1), for the word 'he' there shall be substituted the words 'the Secretary of State or that authority' ; and
(c) in subsection (3), for the words from the beginning to 'approval of a type vehicle' there shall be substituted the words 'Approval of a type vehicle (whether given by the Secretary of State or the prescribed testing authority) may at arty time be withdrawn by either of them'.

(2) At the end of that section there shall be inserted the following subsecticon—
(4) Regulations may make provision with respect to—

(a) the examination of vehicles for the purposes of this section by or under the direction of authorised inspectors;
(b)the approval of vehicles as type vehicles by the prescribed testing authority on such examinations, or the withdrawal of such approval by that authority on such examinations;
(c) the issue or refusal of certificates under subsection (2) above by authorised inspectors; and
(d) the authorisation by the prescribed testing authority of persons to make declarations under subsection (2) above.""

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in subsection (1)(b), leave out 'and' and insert—
(c) at end of subsection (2) add—
'(2A) The authority prescribed by the Secretary of State shall not engage in any other form of commercial activity.'; and".—[Mr. Booth.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords
amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 277.

Division No. 328]
 [5.02 Pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Allaun, Frank


Adams, Allen
Alton, David






Anderson, Donald
Gourley, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Ted


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Beith, A. J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Bidwell, Sydney
Home Robertson, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Homewood, William


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Hooley, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Huckfield, Les


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)



Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
John, Brynmor


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carmichael, Neil
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kerr, Russell


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Lambie, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lamond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Leadbitter, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cook, Robin F.
Litherland, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Crowther, Stan
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davidson, Arthur
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McMahon, Andrew


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McNamara, Kevin


Deakins, Eric
McTaggart, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marks, Kenneth


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas, Dick
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dubs, Alfred
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dunnett, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alex
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


English, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, John (Newton)
Newens, Stanley


Ewing, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fitch, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ford, Ben
Palmer, Arthur


Forrester, John
Parker, John


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


Foulkes, George
Pavitt, Laurie


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Pendry, Tom


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
 Pitt, William Henry


Freud, Clement
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Race, Reg


Golding, John
Radice, Giles





Richardson, Jo
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tilley, John


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Torney, Tom


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Rooker, J. W.
Wardell, Gareth


Roper, John
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Sandelson, Neville
Watkins, David


Sever, John
Weetch, Ken


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wellbeloved, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Michael


Short, Mrs Renée
White, Frank R.


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Smith, Rt Hon J.(N Lanark)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Winnick, David


Stoddart, David
 Woodall, Alec


Stott, Roger
Woolmer, Kenneth


Strang, Gavin
Wright, Sheila


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton E)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
 Mr. George Morton and


Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
 Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cockeram, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Corrie, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Costain, Sir Albert


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Crouch, David


Banks, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dunn, James A.


Best, Keith
Durant, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Blackburn, John
Eggar, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, Sir William


Body, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bowden, Andrew
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Farr, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fell, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Butcher, John
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Glyn, Dr Alan


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Goodlad, Alastair






Gorst, John
Moore, John


Gow, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grieve, Percy
Mudd, David


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Murphy, Christopher


Grist, Ian
Myles, David


Grylls, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A.
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hawksley, Warren
Parris, Matthew


Hayhoe, Barney
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Heddle, John
Patten, John (Oxford)


Henderson, Barry
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert
Percival, Sir Ian


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Pink, R. Bonner


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pollock, Alexander


Hooson, Tom
Porter, Barry


Hordern, Peter
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Rathbone, Tim


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rossi, Hugh


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knox, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lamont, Norman
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Latham, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lee, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Richard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Macfarlane, Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Spence, John


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Sproat, lain


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stainton, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stanley, John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Martin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thompson, Donald


Miscampbell, Norman
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Montgomery, Fergus
Trippier, David





Trotter, Neville
Wheeler, John


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Whitney, Raymond


Viggers, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Wakeham, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wilkinson, John


Walker, B. (Perth )
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Winterton, Nicholas


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walters, Dennis



Ward, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Carol Mather.


Wells, John (Maidstone)

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

INVESTMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED COMPANY INTERESTED IN
FORMER GOVERNMENT TESTING STATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 14, line 26, leave out from "company" to "on" in line 28 and insert
with a present or prospective interest in Government testing station assets
Read a Second time.

Mr. Roger Stott: I beg to move
amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, after 'insert"', insert
'which is an independent and non-profit making body under the control of Lloyd's Register of S hipping'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 10 and Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12, 15 and 16.

Mr. Stott: The principal issue at stake is the privatisation of heavy goods vehicle testing stations. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends and others believe that this is the most ridiculous proposal ever to emanate from the Department of Transport. It has attracted universal hostility—from the industry, the unions, the inspectors and almost everyone concerned with the testing of heavy goods vehicles. The all-party Select Committee twice produced a report that emphatically condemned the Government for introducing these ludicrous proposals. All sides have been ranged against the Government.
In their amendment, their Lordships have specified that the Secretary of State could make loans under the Bill to a company with a present or prospective interest in Government testing stations. The Minister will know that we had a long argument about the matter in Committee. Neither my right hon . and hon. Friends nor I were satisfied that the Secretary of State should make loans to private companies. We were not satisfied that there would be any checking of the rate of interest on the money that the Government loaned. The Minister was seized of that point Their Lordships have now included provision for prospective buyers. That changes the Bill considerably.
I am mindful of what the Government are doing with regard to British Airways. They are fattening up the cow in preparation for its being sold off to private enterprise. They are writing off BA's debts and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are going in that venture.
The Opposition are worried about public money being invested, given away or lent by the Secretary of State to private companies that want to take over the administration of heavy goods vehicle testing stations. We all know that testing stations have a good reputation as independent testing authorities. The House would be foolish to pass legislation that undermines the independence of those stations and their officials and inspectors.
5.15 pm
Our amendment would clarify the issue. We utterly oppose the proposal to sell off the testing stations. If, however, they must be sold off, we want those 91 stations to be taken over by one company, not sold off piecemeal to several companies. The one company that would maintain their currently high standard is Lloyd's Register of Shipping. It is an independent non-profit making organisation that commands the respect of both sides of the House with regard to its ability to conduct its affairs properly and truly independently.
I was interested to read the proceedings in another place for 5 July. I am advised that I may quote from those proceedings if I quote from a Minister's speech. Lord Bellwin said:
Surely what we need is a legal structure which leaves us and future Governments with the freedom to take sensible decisions in the light of facts, with appropriate safeguards to ensure that these decisions will not run contrary to our central—and I say it yet again—aim of maintaining safety standards and providing the best possible service to the road transport industry. I believe that we have these safeguards in the Bill, as I have already explained. We accept that the impartiality of testing is vital and our choice of Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority to take over the testing system is proof of that." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 1982; Vol. 432, c. 607.]
Have the Government made that choice? Has the deal been done? Is Lloyd's Register of Shipping to be the new testing authority for heavy goods vehicles? If so, the Minister can have no objection to our amendment. Her noble Friend has already said
our choice of Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority to take over the testing system is proof'
of the fact that the Government wish to ensure that the testing stations remain independent and perform at their current highly independent level.
I need detain the House no longer. I have deployed my arguments. I hope that the hon. Lady will take what I have said on board. I shall be amazed if she refuses to accept the amendment as her noble Friend has let the cat out of the bag.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall deal first with the comments of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) on his amendments before I turn to the Government amendments grouped with them. I fully understand that nothing that I say at the Dispatch Box or anywhere else will persuade the hon. Gentleman of the wisdom of allowing heavy goods vehicle testing and some PSV testing to be undertaken by a non-profit-making authority such as the Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority—the name that my noble Friend Lord Bellwin gave to the body with which, as the Government have quite often said, they are having discussions about taking over the heavy goods vehicle testing and the PSV testing. However, I hope that when I have finished my remarks, he may agree that the safeguards that the Lords have put into the Bill have done all that needs to be done to reassure him.
First, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's amendments may be inspired by a misunderstanding of the use to which the power to make loans under clause 12 may be put. Clause 12 allows the Secretary of State to lend money only to a company in which he holds a controlling interest. It could not be used to lend to a private sector company such as Lloyd's or any company controlled by it. That is why the hon. Gentleman's amendments do not do what he has sought to persuade the House that they might do. I understand, however, that the Opposition wanted to raise again the idea of restricting the Secretary of State's choice over the type of organisation to which testing could be transferred. The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by referring to a single company taking over all the 91 testing stations currently looked after by the Department of Transport. Therefore, I shall deal first with that point, before I deal with the question of restricting the Secretary of State's choice.
I hope that I can show hon. Members that their amendments are unnecessary. Under clause 12(2) the power to make loans can be exercised only in relation to a company in which the Secretary of State for Transport has a controlling interest. There is therefore no question of making loans—the hon. Gentleman referred to giving public money—to a private sector company of any sort, whether it be a company controlled by Lloyd's or an ordinary commercial company. The powers are restricted to the Secretary of State's own interim company, if such a company needs to be set up in this case. It is, of course, our intention—I emphasise what Lord Bellwin said—if it can be agreed, to transfer the testing system directly to the Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority without the need to use the interim stage of a wholly owned company. It is highly unlikely that the provisions in the clause will ever be used. However, the Government cannot yet announce final agreement with Lloyd's and we feel that it is prudent to retain these powers in the Bill as a safeguard in case anything should go wrong in the current discussions. The hon. Gentleman's amendments, however, would not achieve what he intended to achieve. Indeed, they would introduce a contradiction into the clause.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I speak as a member of the Select Committee—indeed, the hon. Lady is surrounded by members of that Committee—responsible for the report which expressed dismay at the Government's intention and mentioned the possibility that Lloyd's Register of Shipping should take over and become the future authority. I think that the House would be very reluctant not to support the Opposition amendment in the present situation, unless the hon. Lady can be much more forthcoming to the House today. Are there impediments? What difficulties are arising? If the Government are as efficient as the hon. Lady proclaims, they must have had many preliminary discussions with Lloyd's. Can the hon. Lady be more forthcoming? Many people are very anxious about the possibility of reductions in the standards of the testing system.

Mrs. Chalker: Whenever we have debated this part of the Bill I have said that I have no interest whatsoever in reducing standards and I would not be putting forward these provisions if I thought that they would lead to a reduction in the standards of testing. That is why I was particularly glad when Lloyd's Register agreed to consider


the possibility of taking over—under the separate heading of Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority—all 91 stations. That has been the concern of the Opposition at all times. I understand the reservations of right hon. and hon. Members of the Select Committee, but in dealing with the amendment of the hon. Member for Westhoughton I was simply seeking to explain that clause 12 allows the Secretary of State to lend money only to a company in which he holds a controlling interest. Therefore, it cannot go to a Lloyd's company or a separate company derived from Lloyd's. It can go only to an interim company, if such a company needed to be set up during the transfer of the work from the Government to the Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority.

Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend refers to an interim company. As she is probably aware, some of the 91 testing stations are far from profitable. It would therefore be possible to discuss with Lloyd's Register or perhaps some similar body the possibility of taking over a great number of the testing stations, leaving my hon. Friend with the difficult task of dealing with the loss-makers. Does my hon. Friend foresee that this provision would enable a company in which the Secretary of State had a controlling interest perhaps to administer those stations that could not be taken over by a body such as Lloyd's Register rather than allowing them to be sold off to purely commercial concerns? That is the main fear not only of the Opposition but of the Select Committee.

Mrs. Chalker: I sympathise very much with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). I can assure him that in all the discussions that have taken place we have been discussing the 91 vehicle testing stations as a whole. We have not discussed them piecemeal. When we discussed the Bill in Committee earlier in the year we discussed what the situation would be if a prospective non-profit-making tester came along who did not want some of the far-flung stations. At that time I said that if it was not possible to reach agreement the Government could perhaps take on some of the far-flung stations. I remember that at that point in our discussion we had a geographical tour round the country. It is true that it would be possible for the Government, through the interim company, to take on the less attractive stations. However, the matter has always been seen as one that should be dealt with as a whole, if at all possible. I can therefore assure the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and the House that in all the discussion that has taken place on the transfer of heavy goods vehicle and PSV testing we have discussed the matter as a whole rather than any particular part of it. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
We believe that the best course would be the transfer to Lloyd's Register. That proposal would maintain the high safety standards and the impartiality to which all parts of the House attach equally great importance. We also believe that it would allow scope for a better service to be provided to the heavy goods vehicle industry. We fully expect our negotiations with Lloyd's Register to bear fruit. A testing system operated by Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority would undoubtedly be successful and of benefit to the industry. However, the transfer to Lloyd's Register is not the only option for the future of the system. We have, as the hon. Gentleman asked, been involved in detailed discussions as to how we want to do this, and that

is why I am not in a position to tell the House tonight that we have finally and successfully concluded those discussions.
There is more preparation work to be done, but I firmly believe that the wcrk that has been done will, and can, lead to a testing system that will be carried out impartially, thoroughly, consistently and to the proper standards. That does not mean that there is only one way to organise the system, and we must explore all the possibilities. I would have been dismayed, and would have felt that we had been shortsighted, if we had bound ourselves to one option because there will be other possibilities in time; these testing principles are not a static matter. We have to have an opportunity in future years for flexibility, development, growth and change.
5.30 pm
I hope to be able to come to the House soon with news, but hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot say anything more about the Lloyd's Register Vehicle Testing Authority than I have said today. The House will have a chance to approve the proposals and authorise that body, as provided in clause 8.
I hope that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman why his amendments to Lords amendment No. 10 are not acceptable. The amendments in the name of the Government, Nos. 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16, while they appear substantial, are extremely limited and technical in their effect. They alter the definition of certain phrases in clause 12 and later references to them in clause 14 to make the definitions more apt and more accurate. The Lords amendments standing in the name of the Government do not alter the substance or the effect of the clauses. I hope that when we come to vote on them the House will see fit to agree with the Lords amendments and to reject the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Stott: With leave of the House, may I say that I have listened carefully to the Minister, but she has not satisfied me about the provisions in the Bill. The hon. Lady said that the provisions in clause 12 are there in case they may be needed, but that the Government did not envisage using them. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, we are not debating something that we might not use, but something that is in black and white before us in the Bill, and that is part of a legislative provision. Those provisions will bind the Secretary of State.
The hon. Lady said that the Lords amendments are complementary to making it possible for the Secretary of State to set up his interim company with Government money. For a start the word "interim" fills me with suspicion because it means that the company will be there for only a short time, until it is handed over lock, stock and barrel to the operator who is now operating with the Government. Therefore, what the hon. Lady has said has not allayed our suspicions, doubts and fears about the matter.
The hon. Lady tells us that the negotiations that she is having with Lloyd's have not yet reached a conclusion. However, the Bill went into Committee in May of this year. That was a long time ago. I do not know how long these negotiations will continue, but there must come a time when there is to be some resolution of the matter. The Bill should not leave the House without our making a firm judgment on where those 91 testing stations should go. They should remain in the Department of Transport. If they are not to do so, they should go to the Lloyd's


Register of Shipping because that is the only body we have any faith or trust in to carry out tests on an independent basis and maintain them at the high level of standards that we now enjoy.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 274.

Division No. 329] 
[5.35 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Adams, Allen
English, Michael


Allaun, Frank
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Alton, David
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fitch, Alan


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Ford, Ben


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Forrester, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foulkes, George


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Beith, A. J.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Freud, Clement


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
George, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Tom
Golding, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gourley, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Graham, Ted


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Campbell, Ian
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heffer, Eric S.


Canavan, Dennis
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cant, R. B.
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Carmichael, Neil
Home Robertson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Homewood, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hooley, Frank


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Stanley
Hoyle, Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Huckfield, Les


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin F.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cowans, Harry
Janner, Hon Greville


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Crowther, Stan
John, Brynmor


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lamond, James


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leighton, Ronald


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McCartney, Hugh


Eadie, Alex
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Eastham, Ken
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
McKelvey, William





MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McMahon, Andrew
Short, Mrs Renée


McNamara, Kevin
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McTaggart, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stallard, A. W.


Maxton, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Stoddart, David


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tilley, John


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Tin, James


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Torney, Tom


Newens, Stanley
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Parker, John
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Parry, Robert
Watkins, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Pendry, Tom
Wellbeloved, James


Pitt, William Henry
Welsh, Michael


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
White, Frank R.


Prescott, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Race, Reg
Whitehead, Phillip


Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Richardson, Jo
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Winnick, David


Rooker, J. W.
Woodall, Alec


Roper, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wright, Sheila


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sandelson, Neville



Sever, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. George Morton and


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Derek Foster




Adley, Robert
Brinton, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brotherton, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Brown, Michael(Brigg v&amp; Sc'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Buck, Antony


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Budgen, Nick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bulmer, Esmond


Banks, Robert
Burden, Sir Frederick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butcher, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Best, Keith
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Churchill, W. S.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blackburn, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Sir Walter


Body, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John


Bowden, Andrew
Corrie, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Costain, Sir Albert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cranborne, Viscount






Crouch, David
Latham, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lee, John


Dover, Denshore
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loveridge, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Luce, Richard


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
McCrindle, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacGregor, John


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fell, Sir Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McQuarrie, Albert


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Major, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marland, Paul


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Marlow, Antony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Patrick


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miscampbell, Norman


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Montgomery, Fergus


Goodlad, Alastair
Moore, John


Gorst, John
Morgan, Geraint


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mudd, David


Grieve, Percy
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Myles, David


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Neale, Gerrard


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Gummer, John Selwyn
Newton, Tony


Hamilton, Hon A.
Onslow, Cranley


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hannam, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parris, Matthew


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hayhoe, Barney
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heddle, John
Pawsey, James


Henderson, Barry
Percival, Sir Ian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pollock, Alexander


Hill, James
Porter, Barry


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hooson, Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hordern, Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Royle, Sir Anthony


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lang, Ian
Scott, Nicholas





Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thornton, Malcolm


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Shepherd, Richard
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Dudley
Wakeham, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Speed, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Speller, Tony
Wall, Sir Patrick


Spence, John
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Dennis


Sproat, lain
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stainton, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Raymond


Stevens, Martin
Wickenden, Keith


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Tapsell, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Thompson, Donald
Mr. Carol Mather.


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13

EXCLUSION OF SECURITY OF TENURE IN CASE OF PREMISES USED FOR VEHICLE TESTING BUSINESS

Lords amendment: No. 13. in page 16, line 3, leave out from "where" to "are" in line 6 and insert
the property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which, in accordance with any agreement relating to the tenancy (Whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not)

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 14.

Mrs. Chalker: These are technical amendments to put right two small deficiencies in clause 13, the first of which, covered by amedment No. 13, was pointed out in Committee by the Opposition. I am grateful to them for that. The amendment ensures that the Secretary of State could repossess the whole testing premises if necessary, notwithstanding that part of the site might be used for other purposes.
Amendment No. 14 is purely formal.

Mr. Booth: I wish to express the Opposition's gratitude for the way in which the Government have responded to the point that we made in Committee. It is an important point, which is related not strictly to a principle of heavy goods vehicles testing, but rather to the idea of allowing a protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act—which is intended for an entirely different


purpose—to bear down on Government property that becomes a tenancy as a result of the application of the policy.
I hope that it has proved to be one area of calm and agreement in a rather large area of turbulent disagreement. We consider the Bill to be wicked, but we are agreed that where a tenancy is transferred the Bill should not enable the tenancy to be carried on for commercial purposes quite unrelated to testing. That is one thing that will have been achieved as a result of our Committee proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17

ALTERATION OF PLATED WEIGHTS FOR GOODS VEHICLES
WITHOUT EXAMINATION

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 19, line 24, leave out from "the" to "of' in line 25 and insert
cancellation of any such certificate and the issue in place of it

Read a Second time.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end insert
'for the purpose of reducing the gross or net weight of a vehicle'.
The Bill and the Lords amendment together have the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to amend approval certificates for heavy goods vehicles. The approval certificates determine the way in which the vehicles are plated. Every HGV that operates legally in Britain has a plate that states the proper net weight, the maximum weight that it can carry, and so on.
Up to now it has been necessary for a vehicle to be examined before a certificate could be issued on which the vehicle was plated. To be legal, the plate had to comply with the approval certificate. The Lords amendment, coupled with clause 17, provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations in a way which would enable approval certificates to be amended without the vehicle being brought in for examination. In my view, it is a paving amendment for the raising of heavy goods vehicle weights. If heavy goods vehicle weights are raised by an amendment to our construction and use regulations, given that the Lords amendment and the clause are carried, it would then be possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations so that the approval certificates for the HGVs were altered and the vehicles replated without examination.
My amendment would limit the power of the Secretary of State so that he could make regulations only to change approval certificates—thus allowing vehicles to be replated without examination —if the maximum weight to be carried by the lorry was to be reduced. He would not be able to use the procedure to allow vehicles to be plated for a heavier weight without examination.
If a vehicle is allowed to run with a heavier weight than that for which it was previously plated there is an almost unanswerable case for having the vehicle re-tested in the goods vehicle testing station as to its suitability to operate at the higher weights. We have had a number of vehicles in this country running with plated weights below the nominal weights for which the manufacturers claim they have been designed. The 32·5 tonnes articulated vehicle is probably the best known example. In fact,

manufacturers say that they could sell that vehicle to countries whose construction and use regulations would allow it to run at 34 tonnes or more and it could still be a safe vehicle. However, that is a matter for those countries to decide; it is not a matter for the United Kingdom. The matter for us to decide here tonight is whether we as parliamentarians think it right that vehicles of which we have no experience in running at weights greater than their present plated weight should, on a regulation from the Secretary of State, be allowed to have their certificates amended and thereby run at higher weights.
I had thought that one of the mechanisms of the Bill had tended to avoid the amending of certificates. As a general rule, it has been the practice in the Bill that where any form of certification is to be changed a new certificate is required. It has been the view of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport that an amending certificate, of itself, can give rise to certain difficulties and open up the possibility of illegal operation. So there is the minor complaint that amendment of approval certificates is open to the same objections as amendment of any other document required for the legal running of a vehicle. However, that is nothing like as serious as the power of the Secretary of State to issue a regulation that would allow the owners of vehicles to have their approval certificates altered without examination of the vehicles.
The examinations which, in my view, would be necessary before vehicles should be plated, have their approval certificates changed and therefore be plated to carry greater weights, are numerous. I shall mention a few.
There are braking tests, for example, which may be totally adequate for a vehicle run at one weight, but may be anything but satisfactory for vehicles at other weights. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory—I think it was—did a series of checks on vehicles on British roads which had been covered by the appropriate plating and testing within a few months of their going on the roads. It found that the braking efficiencies were lamentably lower than those which the manufacturers claimed for them. Braking efficiencies of considerably less than 50 per cent. were not uncommon among the vehicles examined on our roads. There would be other safeguard mechanisms.
Presumably, if we are to be guided by the Government's White Paper on heavy lorries, guards may need to be fitted. A simple examination would be needed to see whether the appropriate guards had been fitted. That is something that would normally be taken into account if there were a requirement to have the vehicle re-examined or tested at the station.
Then there is the lighting of the vehicle. In particular, a re-test on exhaust emissions is important. We see vehicles carrying heavy loads up hills. That is where one is far more likely to see whether the controls are satisfactory than when they are running at lighter weights. There is also the question whether the suspension is capable of dealing with heavy loadings or whether, as many county surveyors and bridgemasters contend, it would threaten the underground services in our towns and cities. Those are all matters on which I believe it is perfectly proper to require a vehicle examination before replating.
In my view, the proposed way to deal with the problem cannot commend itself to the House in any case. The argument about whether to have heavy lorries on our roads


should be completely divorced from the argument about whether vehicles should be allowed to be replated to heavier weights without re-examination. Unfortunately, unless the Government are prepared to accept our amendment, I fear that the whole problem of heavy lorries will again rear its ugly head, with the suspicion that, not only are lorry weights about to be raised, but that they will be raised and that the vehicles can be replated without being subject to a test station examination.
For those reasons, even if there were no question before the House, as I know there is following the Government White Paper, of lorry weights generally being raised, I hope that the House will not agree to allow vehicles to have their plated weights altered under approval certificates so as to run with heavier loads on our roads in any form of regulation issued by the Secretary of State, without requiring the practice to be carried out of having the vehicle checked in a station.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), whose argument was cogent and correct.
Perhaps the Minister can help me on one matter. As her Department will know, I have had much difficulty over the years with heavy trailers which are categorised as plated vehicles of the heavy goods variety. The problem in my constituency is that they come in from all over the world and park in residential areas. When I asked the police to remove them, they would not do so, initially, but after I received help from the Department of Transport the police made some headway. However, the owners then removed various fittings and in doing so put the trailers outside the Road Traffic Act 1974. They became simply pieces of garbage on the road. As the vehicles were not obstructing traffic, being in residential areas, we were unable to have the trailers removed.
Will the Minister assure me that such problems are solved by clause 17? May I be assured that where such trailers are parked in residential areas in my constituency they can be removed and not, as hitherto, be put outside the law by the removal of certain fittings?

Mrs. Chalker: For convenience, may I respond first to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I understand the problems that he and other hon. Members have experienced in the past of trailers having had wheels and other parts removed while parked within their constituencies. Unlawful parking is covered by the traffic regulation orsders. Even if parts are removed, action can still be taken against the owners of such unlawfully parked vehicles.
The matter will be dealt with later in extensive amendments which attempt to ensure that operating centres are properly used by heavy goods vehicle operators and that people in residential areas are not inconvenienced. I can deal with the matter at that point, or the hon. Gentleman may prefer to discuss the matter with me so that I an explain how we are trying to meet the problems caused by cowboy operators—not the vast majority of members of the Freight Transport Association Ltd. or the Road Haulage Association—who unreasonably drop their trailers wherever they see fit in residential areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to take up the matter later today or subsequently. We are seeking to meet the points that he and other hon. Members have made.
At the start of my reply to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), I should like to clarify the position about design weights. A vehicle's design weights, as shown on the Ministry plate, are approved by the Department of Transport. They are not only what the manufacturers say that the vehicle can carry, but what the Department realises is safe. The Department approves both the design weight and the maximum legal weight in the United Kingdom, and that is known as the plated weight. Lords amendment No. 17 does not move away from that concept.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's fears. In most cases I have no hesitation in saying that an individual examination should take place if there is a question of changing plated weights. For example, if a vehicle has been altered, it is right that there should be an examination before it is issued with a new plate and allowed to operate at revised weights. That might also be true with regard to downplating, as well as the more vexations problem of lorries carrying more than is currently permitted by British law which the right hon. Gentleman has foreseen.
From time to time the examination of a vehicle may not be necessary. The clause allows the Secretary of State flexibility to deal with such cases. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to restrict that flexibility only to cases where there is a weight reduction. A lighter weight does not necessarily mean that the vehicle is safer. There is no reason why the clause should not apply to increases as well as to decreases in weight.
The clause was drafted to deal with an instance where a vehicle has not been altered, but where the operator seeks to take advantage of a change in the legal position in relation to plated weights. Such an example would be if Parliament should decide to approve changes for goods vehicles.
There are many vehicles on our roads today the design and construction of which make them suitable to operate at higher weights, if allowed They are travelling around a third full of air. The design weight on a vehicle's plate will show its limit. In deciding that weight, my Department has carefully considered all the vehicle's characteristics. It has judged that the vehicle could operate safely at a higher weight but that, because the law stipulates 32½ tonnes, it can operate only at that weight. That is why both design weights and maximum legal weights are shown on the vehicle's plate.
If in future Parliament should decide that higher weights are acceptable, regulations made under the clause will allow suitable vehicles with higher design weights to take advantage of such a decision. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would mean that all such vehicles would first have to be examined, and that would duplicate work already done.
It may be the view of the House that vehicles should be individually examined. If so, they can be examined under the terms of the Bill as it now stands. However, it seems wrong for us to dispense with the flexibility provided by the clause, which would be the result of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. We would tie ourselves to the individual examination of a vehicle irrespective of whether, in practical terms, we could safely—that is the key word—dispense with the examination. If there is any question of safety, the examination must take place.
A further safeguard exists if the right hon. Gentleman is looking for one. Any provisions that the Secretary of


State brought forward, such as those I have mentioned, would be contained in regulations subject to the normal parliamentary controls. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's amendment is unnecessary. All regulations covering any change in maximum permitted weights would be before Parliament. No decision has yet been taken whether lorries which could carry higher weights within their design weight should be examined. That could be done if the House so wished. Clause 17, as amended in the other place, simply allows room for manoeuvre.
If there were an alteration, such as the addition of an axle or an alteration to the braking system and if there were to be any change in the plated weight, an examination would, in the interests of safety, always have to be carried out.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to side and rear guards. If they were to be mandatory, it could only apply to new vehicles, because not all vehicles could safely have side and rear guards fitted to them.
Lighting and exhaust emissions are subject to the annual HGV test, as is suspension. A vehicle's suspension is extremely important because not only the overall suspension but the load bearing on each axle must be safe.
In any case where there has been an alteration or where something that has happened to the vehicle gives cause for hesitation, a re-examination of that vehicle can be required before any advantage is taken of any future weight increase which the House might make. The possibility of altering plated weights without an examination arises only when the vehicle has not been altered and its design weight is appropriate to any change in the weight limit.
In one way, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness welcomed amendment No. 17 because it improves the procedure for alterations of the certificate of plated weights. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not a good thing to amend existing certificates. We would prefer to issue a new document instead of amending the old document, because, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, unscrupulous operators might try to change the original alteration. That is why Lords amendment No. 17, which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to amend, is before us.
It would be wrong to remove the flexibility in the amendment. In the interests of safety, examinations must be carried out whenever there is any change in plated weight. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and I are at odds not where a vehicle is designed to take more than the permitted maximum weight at the present time, but where, because of our present laws, it takes a maximum weight of 32½ tonnes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Booth: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that until her closing remarks, the hon. Lady put forward a powerful argument for not changing the law in any way—not even to the limited extent that we were prepared to allow in our amendment—on this difficult issue of allowing changes in plated weights without examination.
However, the hon. Lady said that normally any change of weights would require examination, and that the Government were thinking of using the powers only if they could get an amendment to the construction and use regulations so that existing vehicles could operate with

higher weights. The whole burden of our argument is that it is exactly at that point that we would wish to reassure our constituents that vehicles which were to have their gross weights increased would be re-examined before they went back on the roads.
If it were possible to withdraw our amendment and vote against any changes, I would be happy to accept the hon. Lady's guidance, but if she examines clause 17 and the Lords amendments to it, she will realise why that is not possible. Lords amendment No. 17 deals with the minor question of taking away the provision for amending the certificate and, very sensibly, replacing it with the provision to withdraw the previous approval certificate and issue a new one. But that does not bite upon the Opposition amendment, which is the only issue on which we can vote.
I agree that our amendment would not prevent the Government from issuing a regulation, if they chose to do so, to enable approval certificates to be issued for lower plated weights on vehicles. We are assured by the Government that they have no intention of doing that. They want this provision so that they can allow vehicles to be plated at higher weights. The Minister said that only if the law were changed to permit existing vehicles to use heavier gross weights would this provision be used. The House can form its own judgment on that proposition.
Our amendment would improve the Bill in that it would limit the practice of permitting plating changes without the re-examination of plating changes at lower gross weights. Such an improvement would be possible only if we could take out clause 17 altogether. Therefore, I commend the House to vote for the Opposition amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 279.

Division No. 330] 
[6.14 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley


Adams, Allen
Coleman, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Alton, David
Conlan, Bernard


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Robin F.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cowans, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Cryer, Bob


Bagier, Gordon A.T
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Beith, A. J.
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Arthur


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Deakins, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dixon, Donald


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Douglas, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Dubs, Alfred


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dunnett, Jack


Campbell, Ian
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eadie, Alex


Canavan, Dennis
Eastham, Ken


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
English, Michael


Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)




Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Forrester, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foster, Derek
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Foulkes, George
Newens, Stanley


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Neill, Martin

Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Palmer, Arthur


George, Bruce
Parker, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Golding, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Gourley, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Graham, Ted
Pitt, William Henry


Grant, John (Islington C)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Prescott, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Race, Reg


Hardy, Peter
Radice, Giles


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Homewood, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hooley, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Horam, John
Ryman, John


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Sever, John


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Hoyle, Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Huckfield, Les
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Short, Mrs Renée


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Janner, Hon Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stoddart, David


Kerr, Russell
Stott, Roger


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Leighton, Ronald
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lestor, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tilley, John


Litherland, Robert
Tinn, James


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Torney, Tom


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wardell, Gareth


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McKelvey, William
Watkins, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Weetch, Ken


McMahon, Andrew
Welsh, Michael


McNamara, Kevin
White, Frank R.


McTaggart, Robert
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Marks, Kenneth
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wigley, Dafydd


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Maxton, John
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Winnick, David


Meacher, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woolmer, Kenneth


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wright, Sheila





Young, David (Bolton E)
Mr. Gorge Morton and



Mr. Hugh McCartney


Teller for the Ayes:





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fell, Sir Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fox, Marcus


Banks, Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Best, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, John
Gorst, John


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grieve, Percy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Andrew
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brotherton, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hastings, Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Buck, Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John


Burden, Sir Frederick
Henderson, Barry


Butcher, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hill, James


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hooson, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Cockeram, Eric
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby


Corrie, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Costain, Sir Albert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Dover, Denshore
Knox, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lee, John


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Loveridge, John


Farr, John
Luce, Richard






Lyell, Nicholas
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCrindle, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacGregor, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shepherd, Richard


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Major, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marland, Paul
Smith, Dudley


Marlow, Antony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Speller, Tony


Mates, Michael
Spence, John


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawby, Ray
Sproat, lain


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Mayhew, Patrick
Stainton, Keith


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stanley, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stevens, Martin


Moate, Roger
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Moore, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Morgan, Geraint
Tapsell, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mudd, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Thompson, Donald


Myles, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilfford South)


Neale, Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Newton, Tony
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trotter, Neville


Page, John (Harrow, West)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Parris, Matthew
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wakeham, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, B. (Perth )


Pawsey, James
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Percival, Sir Ian
Wall, Sir Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Waller, Gary


Pollock, Alexander
Walters, Dennis


Porter, Barry
Ward, John


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wilkinson, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rossi, Hugh



Rost, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Mr. Carol Mather.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 27

FIXED PENALTY NOTICES GIVEN AT A POLICE STATION.

Lords amendment: No. 23 in page 29, line 12, after "notice" insert
(being a police station chosen by the person concerned)

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 24 and amendments (a) and (b) to the Lords amendment, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth).

Mrs. Chalker: I understand that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) would like me to put it on record that the purpose of Lords amendment No. 23 is to ensure that the police station specified in the notice as the station at which the driver must present his driving licence and preliminary notice in order to receive a fixed penalty notice is one chosen by the driver rather than by the constable.
The purpose of Lords amendment No. 24 is to exclude Scotland entirely from the operation of clause 27, which allows fixed penalty notices to be given at police stations. Clause 27 does not apply in Scotland and it might be helpful to remind the House why. Scotland and England have two very different legal systems. From time to time the reason for that baffles us all, but it is historic and we maintain it.
When the Scottish provisions of the Bill were drawn up following the recommendations of the Stewart committee, the Government had it in mind that they wanted to offer the Scottish motorist the widest possible range of opportunities to have his offence dealt with, if he so chose, by fixed penalty. Therefore, we accepted the Stewart committee's recommendation that fixed penalties should be available to the police, and for a wider range of offences to the procurator fiscal, the Scottish public prosecutor. The fiscal will be able to offer a fixed penalty in cases in which the police have been unable to do so including cases in which they had not done so because the driver was not carrying his driving licence at the time of the event. There is, therefore, no need to have a fixed penalty available at a police station in Scotland, as provided in clause 27 for England and Wales.
Clause 27 does not apply to offences committed in Scotland and that was the position when the Bill left the House. However, after further consideration of the matter, and strong representations from the Scottish police, the Government decided that one further amendment was necessary to exclude Scotland entirely from the operation of clause 27. As the clause is presently drafted, without the amendment made in another place, it would be possible for a Scottish driver stopped by the police in England or Wales to nominate, under clause 27, a police station in Scotland at which he would present his driving licence, and, all being well, get a fixed penalty.
That would mean that all Scottish police stations would have to be equipped, trained and manned to issue fixed penalty notices to those drivers, despite the fact that there would be few of them, and despite the fact that Scottish police would not be issuing such fixed penalty notices for offences committed in Scotland.
6.30 pm
That would represent a substantial administrative burden, because every Scottish police station would have to be prepared for that, even though in practice they would only issue such a fixed penalty notice occasionally. The Scottish police have represented strongly to us that that would be an unnecessary and undue administrative burden. The Government accept that point, as we seek


always to minimise the administrative burdens on the police so that they can get on with their primary job of preventing and detecting crime.
The amendment provides that a police station in Scotland may not be specified by a motorist in England or Wales for getting a fixed penalty notice. It has been suggested that that would be a disadvantage to Scottish motorists travelling in England and Wales who are not carrying their driving licences, as they will be deprived of the benefits of the fixed penalty system. [Interruption.] I respond to the noise made by the Opposition by saying that if drivers do not break the law when they come to England or Wales they will not need that provision. There must be Scottish drivers in England or Wales without their driving licences who are stopped by the police for an endorseable fixed penalty offence.
The offence must be one which in the opinion of the constable merits a fixed penalty—not so trivial as to require merely a warning, and not so serious as to demand prosecution. The driver must be willing to accept a fixed penalty and the endorsement of his driving licence. He must not dispute that he is guilty of the offence or he must go to court. He must not be liable to disqualification on the totting up system. Those preconditions will mean that only a few drivers will be affected. There will not be many Scottish drivers who break the law south of the border. The disadvantage that they are held to suffer will not be that great.
If a Scottish driver commits an offence in England or Wales he will have the opportunity to plead guilty by letter. If he is prosecuted, his driving licence will be endorsed with the same number of points as it would have been following the fixed penalty. The size of any fine imposed will be a matter for the court to decide. It will be open to the motorist to explain to the court that he was unable to get a fixed penalty at a police station because his home was in Scotland. The court will be able to take that into account when deciding on the penalty. If hon. Members consider that it would be of help, I should be happy to draw the matter to the attention of the Magistrates Association whose members will be dealing with those few cases that are likely to arise.
The Government have sought to offer the Scottish motorist the maximum number of opportunities to get a fixed penalty notwithstanding the system of criminal procedure north of the border. In so doing, we have found it necessary to exclude a few Scottish motorists from that benefit. The disadvantage that that group will suffer will not be great.
In our assessment, and that of the Scottish police, the administrative burden necessary to allow that small group to get fixed penalties would outweigh the benefits it would be likely to obtain. That is why the Government sought, and continue to support, the amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to refer to Lords amendment No. 24 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
It is, perhaps, not right for me to introduce a discordant note into proceedings which can be described as having been comradely so far. The Solicitor-General for Scotland informed me courteously that he would be in Brussels. In my view, he should be in the House to deal with essential Scottish legislation. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting on the Government Benches. He should

deal with matters affecting the Scottish police. However, I do not cast any aspersions on the Minister who has so charmingly and mistakenly dealt with Lords amendment No. 24.
When the Brill was originally published it was understood that a fixed penalty notice could not be given to an alleged offender if he or she did not have his driving licence with him at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. It became clear that in Scotland, because of our separate legal systems, the procurator fiscal could make an additional offer under clause 40, which had the effect of a fixed penalty.
Motorists were being treated differently north and south of the border. Motorists north of the border had a wider option than those south of the border. If one had one's licence one took a fixed penalty, but otherwise the offence was fed into the court system. In Committee and on the Floor of the House we persuaded the Government to build on section 161 of Road Traffic Act 1972. That section empowers a constable to direct a driver who does not have his driving licence with him and is stopped for an offence—whether or not he is charged or cautioned—to take his driving licence to a police station of his or her choice within five days so that that licence can be examined as to its validity. The Government accepted what is called the five-day option, which requires a motorist who is stopped for whatever reason and who does not have his licence with him to produce that licence for examination.
Clause 27, which we accepted in its entirety when it was proposed by the Government, provides that a motorist who is stopped and does not have his licence with him may receive a notice from the constable. He then takes that notice and his licence to a police station of his choice. Provided that all the other factors appply, and it is an appropriate case for a fixed penalty notice, he will be given such a fixed penalty notice.
When the Bill left the House to go to the other place drivers in England and Scotland or Wales were being treated similarly under a different legal system. We all believed that everything was fine. We understood that Scotland was excluded from. the provisions of clause 27 because the provision was enacted differently under clause 40.
As a result of Lords amendment No. 24 a driver from Scotland travelling in England who does not have his licence with him does not have the option of the five days to accept the fixed penalty notice, nor does he have the option of being dealt with under the procurator fiscal system because that can only be used for offences committed in Scotland. It has been argued in another place—I accept the argument to some extent—and by to Minister today that every police station in Scotland would need to have an English fixed penalty form, and police officers trained in its procedures. We have the police station at Auchtermuchty trotted out, as being the sort of place where those things could not apply.
The principle that has been advanced today, that a good law is not needed for a few cases only, is a bad legal principle. If a few cases deserve good treatment they should get it. Amendments (a) and (b) can get round the difficulty of training and of keeping masses of forms.
Under amendment (b) the police station can be specified, and the driver could take the notice that he had under section 27 with his licence to that police station in Scotland. He would probably have another document to


say that his licence should be examined for validity. The police station would then return the documents to the issuing authority in England. It could be described as fixed penalty by post.
A police officer would require no special training. According to the Minister, every policeman in Scotland should be trained to operate section 161 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. It would be using well-tried procedures to send the documents by post. Instead of putting one document in an envelope the policeman would merely have to put three.
The amendments would restore parity between drivers in England and in Scotland. Each would benefit from the other's system. Although it is not a major issue, the situation could irritate Scottish drivers who would wonder why they were treated differently. The hon. Lady argues that the difference is negligible, as a driver could plead guilty by letter and could in mitigation state that he would have taken the fixed penalty had he had his driving licence with him. The average motorist is not skilled in the law. I believe that my proposal is reasonable, workable and practical. It demands no more training or resources.

Mr. Michael Ancram: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) would appear to suggest that Scottish motorists are coming out worse as a result of the clause. Its operation in Scotland, by using the process of the procurator fiscal, will give Scottish motorists in Scotland more opportunities to have fixed penalties than their English counterparts. Schedule 2 lists a number of fixed penalties additional to those that will be available in England. The provision puts the Scottish motorist in Scotland in a more favourable position than his English counterpart and in no way does him down.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out the discrepancy for Scottish motorists motoring in England. The fact that we have two legal systems is important, particularly to Scottish lawyers. We expect our police forces to operate within our individual system. I can think of no occasion other than the one that he mentioned where the Scottish police would be asked to operate an exclusively English procedure. Effectively that is what he is asking them to do.

Mr. Hughes: Amendments (a) and (b) do not require the Scottish police to do that; they simply require them to operate a parallel system, which they already do under section 161 of the 1972 Act.

Mr. Ancram: The police would be asked to operate a procedure, however simple, exclusively within the remit of the English rather than the Scottish law. In a similar Scottish case the matter would go to the procurator fiscal. In many ways the Scottish system is easier. It does not require a visit by the driver. The procurator fiscal gives the option of the fixed penalty.
To follow through the logic of his argument, the hon. Gentleman would argue for uniformity between the two systems, but then the Scottish motorist would come off worst. The majority of them motor in Scotland and will benefit by the way that the clause is drafted. The interests of the majority should prevail.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am slightly puzzled by the argument of the hon. Member for

Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). We are not arguing about whether clause 27 should be in the Bill. It is common ground that the proposal is helpful. But the provision is there because an attempt is being made towards uniformity in the systems of England and Scotland. It would give the English an option that is already available to the Scots because of the existence of the procurator fiscal system. The uniformity cannot be achieved administratively. The administrative procedures are different north and south of the border. But we have been reaching for uniformity.
We are talking not about what happens to Scottish motorists who may have offended in Scotland but about the not necessarily large, but not unimportant category, of Scottish motorists who may get into trouble south of the border. Constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) may do more mileage in England than in Scotland. Berwick is their main centre for shopping and other activities.
The Minister's arguments are puzzling. If a Scot has offended in a minor way against the Road Traffic Act 1972 and normally would have been liable to a fixed penalty, because of the way in which clause 27 was amended in the other place, he will be the subject of proceedings in the magistrates court south of the border. I have been a jobbing solicitor in Scotland and I know that nothing causes more confusion than the arrival on a Scottish breakfast table of a summons from an English magistrates court. It is an alien document. People do not understand what it is about. It is an illusion to believe that the average Scot could write the appropriate plea of guilty, if he so wished, and succinctly explain that he was in that position only because of the Government's drafting of section 27 of the Transport Act 1982, as it would then be. He will come rolling round to a Scottish solicitor clutching the extraordinary collection of papers to ask what on earth to do. Some of my colleagues may not see that as a cause for complaint. He will be told that, fortunately, there is the legal aid advice and assistance scheme and the solicitor can expend a substantial sum on giving him advice and guidance on his rights. Then the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), who is sitting on the Front Bench, will whine and complain to the House about the rise in expenditure on the legal aid fund.
The proposal is clumsy, unfortunate and will cause great administrative inconvenience. The hon. Lady said that we must do everything that we can to cut down the administration that falls on the police service. I do not dissent from that general principle. We should avoid unnecessary complications, which only increase the administrative burden.
The hon. Lady also said that there had been a great deal of pressure from the police. I do not know whether it came from the Scottish Police Federation, from chief constables or where. No representations have been made to me. I do not know whether other hon. Members have received representations. I believe that the hon. Lady was taking an exaggerated view of the problem when, slightly dramatically, she said that every police station in Scotland would have to be equipped, trained and manned to deal with the work. All those caught under section 161 of the 1972 Act will bring their driving documents for clarification.
We suggest that the police should not carry out the English procedures in Scotland but that they should send


the necessary documents to the police force in whose area the offence occurred. That simple procedure will reduce the complications that may result, not just for the offender but for the magistrates courts and those in the Department of Transport who must draft a circular to magistrates drawing their attention to the complication. We all have the same objective, but many of the difficulties that have been erected to buttress the Government's approach to the problem are greatly exaggerated. The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North is simple, workable and infinitely preferable.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) ended by talking about simplicity. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is essentially simple and would be of great help to unfortunate motorists who are accused of having committed a motoring offence in England and who are pulled before the magistrates courts simply because a gap in the law does not allow them to exhibit their licences. The forms that are required could be sent back to the prosecuting police force by the Scottish police in an envelope that should be provided by the prosecuting police force. The Minister's explanation is fatuous. I am not convinced about the alleged administrative load that will be placed on the police. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that the police are already well equipped to carry out the required action.
I shall not mention the acceptance of clauses 27 and 40. Clause 40 is much more preferable than clause 27. I shall direct my remarks to the motorist from Scotland who is driving in England and who becomes involved with the police. The Minister said that the motorist could write to the magistrates court to explain the position. The hon. Member for Garscadden said that many motorists will not know about the opportunity with which the Minister has provided them. They do not know about the law or the details that may be given in litigation.
The Minister also said that she would bring the problem to the attention of English magistrates. For up to five months there may be a vestige of recollection by the magistrates of such ministerial advice, but the legislation is intended to last for many years. The Minister's advice will be forgotten quickly and Scots in that position may have to pay additional penalties because they have not invoked the opportunity open to them.
Would a Scottish motorist who is driving in England be required to pay expenses arising from a prosecution in the magistrates court? Expenses are not paid in criminal cases in Scotland. If one appears before a magistrates court, the motoring offence will be placed on one's record of convictions. That fate cannot be escaped, but the suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is reasonable and acceptable to me. Much expense will be incurred if a prosecution is brought in the magistrates court.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It is rather strange to hear two Scottish lawyers in succession referring to the benefits of simplicity. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) implied that a Scottish legal document might be more easily understood than its English counterpart. In my experience, Scottish legal documents tend to be in Latin,

whereas English legal documents are at least in English. [Interruption.] That seems to have set the Scottish lawyers tutting.
The Minister said that she was baffled by the history of Scotland and wet she might be. Sometimes when, in her sleep, she is chased through the Lobbies by her Whips in order to legislate for Scotland, she is taking part in a process from which Scotland has suffered for many years. Many hon. Members believe that legislation that affects Scotland specifically should be dealt with in a Scottish Assembly.
Either we are talking about a reasonable privilege for motorists in both England and Scotland or we are not. The Minister suggested that few Scottish motorists were likely to be caught in such a predicament. However, week alter week in my local press I see long lists of English motorists who have been prosecuted in Scottish courts for speeding offences in Scotland. I have no reason to doubt that my constituents do not reciprocate the offences when they travel in England. Many drivers, especially from my constituency and from the Borders, are involved.
The Minister said—it seemed to be confirmed by vigorous nodding by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for home affairs—that I he police have asked for the reduction of the legal privileges available to Scottish citizens. Such representations should be rejected by the House now. We are told that the police must be equipped, trained and manned to examine a driving licence. That is not a reasonable argument. The Lords amendment that the House is asked to accept is absurd and discriminatory and I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

Mrs. Chalker: I must now try to put the matter in context. I was at pains to point out to hon. Members why only a few Scottish motorists are likely to be affected.

Mr. Robert Hughes: They are better drivers.

Mrs. Chalker: They may be better drivers. I do not wish to see the better driver infringe the law, so" Scottish drivers in England may not find themselves in the difficulties described by Labour Members.
We must examine what happens to the Scottish driver in England and Wales that causes him to fall foul of the law. He must have come south without his driving licence and been stopped by the police for an endorsable fixed penalty offence. The offence must, in the opinion of the constable, merit the fixed penalty. The offence must not be trivial, which would receive a warning, and not so serious as to demand prosecution. The driver must be willing to accept the fixed penalty when he is stopped by the English policeman and he must not dispute the fact that he is guilty. When he is stopped, he must be willing to accept the endorsement of his driving licence. If that is so, he will plead guilty by post anyway. In addition, that driver, south of the border, must not be liable to disqualification on a totting-up basis. That is a fairly hefty list of preconditions which whittles down the number of Scottish drivers south of the border who are likely to be caught by this provision.
7 pm
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made the point, although not directly, that the Bill does not affect the Home Office road traffic procedures. If a


motorist is stopped south of the border he is still required to show his licence. It only affects the fixed penalty notice system and in this way we are trying to ensure that it is absolutely clear how the system will be enacted.
I turn now to amendment (b), on which we are at variance. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) say that it was a simple matter. The amendment states:
and the notice under section (1) above"—
that notice is a fixed penalty notice—
together with the person's licence, shall be returned by the specified police station to the issuing authority, to be dealt with in accordance with this Part of this Act.
That is the fixed penalty notice and that is why I must tell the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North that his Scottish police stations cannot act simply as a post box. The amendment requires them actually to issue the fixed penalty notice. That is why I have been at pains to explain to the House that it would involve developing procedures to ensure that Scottish police stations were properly organised, trained and manned to carry the matter out.

Mr. Home Robertson: They would need extra manpower.

Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that there will be so few Scots who are going to break the law south of the border that it would not be necessary, but it means that a man must be on duty north of the border who knows the English law when the Scottish citizen comes in with his licence.
The attitude of the Scottish police has been questioned by the Opposition. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has made strong representations to be excluded from the operation of clause 27. Comments were made to me personally on a recent visit to Scotland and comments have also been made to the Scottish Office and to the Home Office. The association has said that the provision would cause police officers work which would prevent them from concentrating on their prime duty of preventing and detecting crime.
We must accept those comments on this matter. That is why I have said that the motorist cannot benefit from the hon. Gentleman's proposal in the way that he would like. In Scotland the motorist would walk away from the police station without his fixed penalty notice and he would have to have another served on him. That could lead to additional difficulties which no hon. Member would want.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North also asked me about costs. Costs can be ordered in English courts, as I am sure they can in Scottish courts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am in error and I beg the House's pardon. It is entirely up to the magistrates whether costs are ordered.
The fixed penalty notice system is being introduced to ease the system and not to make it more complicated. Yet here we are debating amendments to the Lords amendment which would complicate matters for the police in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Minister saying that there is no guarantee that a Scot in the position described will be able to escape costs but that it is to be left to the discretion of magistrates, who may not know and may care less about the differences between the legal systems?

Mrs. Chalker: Of course the magistrates will know. They will be advised by the clerks. Perhaps the hon.

Gentleman does not know our system south of the border. The clerks will advise the magistrates and when they see a Scottish address—or even hear a Scottish voice if the person decides to go in person to plead guilty—they will be in no doubt that they are dealing with a Scot who has come south and offended against the law.
If the suggestions by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North were further developed, what would be missing would be the face-to-face confrontation or meeting between the driver and the policemen who should serve the driver with the fixed penalty notice. We had many discussions in Committee as to how this would best be done. It would mean two separate policemen being involved. If the five-day option is taken up south of the border, that is likely to happen. The fixed penalty by post idea, which was finding favour on the Opposition Benches, would not do because the notice must be personally served and that is better done in the way we have described.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was concerned about cross-border motorists. If someone from his lovely constituency offends south of the border, Berwick police station is not terribly far to have to go to sort the matter out, but I understand that there are others further north who would have more difficulty. That point was made by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
I believe that we are making a mountain out of a molehill. The amendment would not do what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North wants it to do. Scottish police stations cannot simply act as post offices. They would have to issue the fixed penalty notice. The police are firmly against that. Indeed, all the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) were spot on. In fact, I do not know why I bothered to reply except that Opposition Members wanted me to do so.

Mr. Robert Hughes: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many red herrings have been drawn across the debate, and the largest one came from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). He said that the Opposition were trying to make both legal systems the same and to operate uniformly. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, with regard to the fixed penalty system, comparable offences are treated in exactly the same way north and south of the border. That is uniformity in my language, and no one would want it differently.
We could not have a system—even my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) would not argue the contrary—whereby someone guilty speeding in Scotland receives a two-point penalty whereas someone guilty of speeding in England receives a six-point penalty. We are not talking about uniformity. We were able to persuade the Government to allow the five-day option period so as to extend the privilege that we have in Scotland because of the different legal system. Unfortunately, in doing that we have now built in a disadvantage, however small, to a Scottish motorist who commits an offence in England.
A Scottish motorist who commits an offence in England or Wales will now be treated differently. If he is stopped at the roadside outside Newcastle, the policeman is likely to say to him "Under section 161 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 you must take your licence to a Scottish police


station, but you cannot take it to a police station for a fixed penalty offence." I do not see how the ordinary motorist will understand that.
The Government proceeded with the fixed penalty system against the wishes of the police in the United Kingdom who simply did not want to do it. I believe that the chief constables in Scotland who are said to be objecting strongly to taking over this minor duty—I do not understand how they have all been consulted since my amendment was tabled on Friday—are operating under the misapprehension that they have to fill out all the forms. My amendment should be accepted by the Government, although there may be a technical problem involved.
There are two notices under clause 27. There is one notice stating that within five days the motorist must take his licence to a police station. The second notice is the fixed penalty notice.
In view of the time and in view of the total intransigence of the Government, I shall not press the amendment to Lords amendment No. 24.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

Clause 28

FURTHER PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO FIXED PENALTY
OFFENCES AND NOTICES

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 30, line 25, leave out "and"

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 26.

Mrs. Chalker: The amendment provides that a fixed penalty notice given to an offender under clause 26(1) of the Bill in Scotland should be in a prescribed—in other words, a defined—form. The form is to be prescribed by virtue of clause 60 in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The reason is straightforward. In Scotland, the fixed penalty notice in which hon. Members were so interested a moment ago can become the principal court document—in other words, the complaint, similar to a summons in England and Wales—in cases where the driver exercises his right to go to court. This is a simple and straightforward pair of amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 and 27 agreed to.

Clause 32

PAYMENT OF FIXED PENALTIES, EFFECT OF PAYMENT
AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 28 in page 34, line 44, leave out
unless the contrary is proved

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 56 to 59.

Mrs. Chalker: This amendment corrects a small defect in the Bill in its reference to the use of certain documents

as evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. We are talking about admissible evidence. The amendment makes the whole matter a good deal clearer.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 33

ENDORSEMENT OF LICENCES WITHOUT HEARINGS

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 36, line 10, leave out from beginning to "endorse" in line 11.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 30.

Mrs. Chalker: It may be for the convenience of the House, as all amendments from Nos. 29 to 60 inclusive are technical or drifting, if they were to be put en bloc.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 60 agreed to.

Clause 47

JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN SCOTLAND

Lords amendment: No. 61, in page 53, line 23, leave out from "Act" to end of line 25 and insert—
(1A) Nothing in this section shall empower the district court in respect of any offence—

(a) to impose—

(i)a penalty of imprisonment which exceeds sixty days; or
(ii)a fine which exceeds level 4 on the standard scale; or

(b) subject to subsection (1B) below, to impose disqualification within the meaning of the 1972 Act.

(1B) Where a person is convicted in the district court of an offence referred to in subsection (1) above, being an offence involving obligatory endorsement,—

(a) the court shall order that particulars of the conviction shall be endorsed on any licence held by him in accordance with section 101 of the 1972 Act; and

(b) if the penalty points to be taken into account under section 19(3) of the Transport Act 1981 number twelve or more, the court shall order him Ito be disqualified under section 19(2) of that Act."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 62.

Mrs. Chalker: I wish to clear up one or two difficulties that may have worried the Opposition over the fixed penalty offence. It is desirable that all fixed penalties should be triable in the same court so that there can be a single, unified fixed penalty system and policemen and motorists do not have to follow one procedure for one offence and a different procedure for another. The clause provides that all fixed penalty offences are triable in the district court but, as amended by Lords amendments Nos. 61 and 62, does not give the court any greater powers of punishment than it would otherwise have. A technical defect in the clause is corrected. The amendment seeks to set up powers of endorsement and disqualification available for the district court: under the Bill. The second amendment is technical and changes the reference to the subsection, which is renumbered.

Lords amendment agreed

Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 64 agreed to.

Clause 48

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 65, in page 55, line 23, at end insert—
( ) An order under section 81(3) of the 1967 Act may not authorise the employment of a traffic warden to discharge any function under this Part of this Act in respect of an offence if the offence appears to the traffic warden to be an offence involving obligatory endorsement.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Stott: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end insert
'as an offence under sections 32, 33A or 33B of the 1972 Road Traffic Act'.
We seem to have made swift progress to the issue now before the House. The hon. Lady and I have been at one in our discussions in respect of the seat belt law that this House has passed. It was important, in the interests of road safety, on the basis of all the available evidence, that the use of seat belts should be made compulsory. The legislation has gone through the House. It will come into operation early next year.
When we were debating the fixed penalty procedure in Committee the hon. Lady indicated that there were a number of offences that could be brought into the fixed penalty category. There were a number of offences that could be dealt with by fixed penalty, but also offences that would require obligatory endorsement in addition to the fixed penalty.
I understand that the provisions within the Bill as it came from another place mean that traffic wardens are not permitted, under the legislation, to issue fixed penalty notices when the offence is an endorsable offence. That is a wise precaution. One recognises the valuable work done by traffic wardens. It would, however, be unwise to extend their powers to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of any of those offences that warranted an obligatory endorsement. I agree with the Government that we should not proceed down that path. There are a number of offences listed in the schedule that are not endorsable and that would fall within the scope and range of traffic wardens. This has to be welcomed as an advance in tidying up so that these offences can be dealt with by fixed penalty through traffic wardens.
My concern is personal. I do not reflect any party political point. This is not a party political issue. I am, however, concerned that the Bill contains provisions which, if not altered, would enable traffic wardens to issue a fixed penalty notice to a person who is in breach of regulations relating to protective headgear for motor cycle riders and passengers. A traffic warden could issue a fixed penalty notice for someone in breach of regulations that require the wearing of seat belts. A traffic warden could issue a fixed penalty notice for breach of restrictions on the carrying of children in the front seat of vehicles. These are categories of contention.
The first category relating to the wearing of crash helmets is very contentious. It is against the law for a motor cyclist not to wear a crash helmet. That law was

passed by the House for motor cycle riders with the exception of Sikhs, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) successfully piloted his Private Member's Bill. I agree that motor cyclists should wear protective headgear. Unfortunately, from time to time, there are demonstrations by certain groups of the motor cycle fraternity who flout the provisions of the law and demonstrate their objection to it.
Given that fact, I would not have thought that it would be a prudent move to allow traffic wardens the power to issue a fixed penalty to someone who is not wearing a crash helmet. The responsibility should be that of a constable in uniform. We should not alter that provision. The new provisions will allow the traffic warden to do what I believe he should not do.
Section 33A of the Act relates to breaches of regulations that require the wearing of seat belts. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I am four square behind the philosophy of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I have always been shoulder to shoulder to the Minister in that respect. The House has passed that law. However, it is a recent law. It has not yet come into force. It may prove to be more difficult to operate than we would imagine. It comes into force in the early part of the new year.

Mrs. Chalker: On 31 January.

Mr. Stott: That is a further commercial about the implementation of the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
I am not suggesting that people should break the law. However, we could encounter passive opposition to that law until the general public believe that it is an offence not to wear seat belts. Given that we are introducing a new law in respect of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, I do not believe that a traffic warden should have the responsibility of issuing someone who is in breach of that law with a fixed penalty notice.
It is very important that the new measure on compulsion should be taken seriously by every law-abiding citizen in the United Kingdom. If that law is flouted, for whatever reason, the person who issues the fixed penalty notice should be a constable in uniform and not a traffic warden. If a traffic warden issued the notice, that would lower the offence in the public eye. The public would treat it simply as a parking ticket fine to be paid at a future date. The non-wearing of seat belts is not to be treated in that way. The House has decided by a large majority on a number of occasions that the law should be put on the statute book and that it should work. If it is to work, the people who should see that the law is implemented should be the police and not traffic wardens, although traffic wardens can implement the law in other areas.
Largely due to the pioneering work of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) in Committee on various Transport Bills, a regulation on carrying children in the front seat of vehicles has been introduced into the Bill. On a number of occasions my hon. Friend argued cogently that we should make it an offence to carry children in the front seats.
Under current legislation it would be possible, if someone were to commit such an offence, for him to be issued with a fixed penalty notice by a traffic warden and not by a constable in uniform. The Minister, whose gesticulations I have come to learn and admire over the months, is furiously shaking her head. If she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she may show that my fears are unfounded.

Mr. Bidwell: My hon. Friend will recall that in Committee in proceedings on the Transport Act 1981 we argued that only a policeman in uniform should be able to give the breathalyser test. We thought that there would be great community difficulties if a policeman or a person in authority out of uniform were to carry out the test. There is a certain logic in that, and in what my hon. Friend is arguing, in another context.

Mr. Stott: My hon. Friend is right. We are seeking to ensure that the majesty of the law is effected by the constable in uniform and no one else.
I would not like these three offences to be flouted by the general public or seen to be an extension of a parking offence simply because they are in the fixed penalty category. I shall welcome the Minister's intervention. We shall see whether I have persuaded her by the force of my . argument that traffic wardens should not be given the powers in future regulations to issue fixed penalty notices to people who break the law that I have mentioned. It would be a retrograde step if the public thought that they could get away with the offences simply because the certificate was issued not by a policeman in uniform but by a traffic warden.

Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) knows, I have many views in common with him on road safety. I have not always favoured compulsory seat belts. However, when one's life is saved by them, that brings home the danger more than at any other time. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) is in a similar situation to me.
When we previously debated this matter, the Government made it clear that they had no intention of extending the powers of traffic wardens in the foreseeable future. That is why I can tell the hon. Gentleman that his fears are unfounded. There are not enough traffic wardens to do their present job. If more become available, careful consideration will need to be given to extending their duties, where issues of principle are involved.
As the House will also know, the duties of traffic wardens cannot be extended except by the affirmative resolution procedure so that if any Government introduced offences such as those in section 32(3), section 33A(3) and section 33B(2), of the 1972 Act, which relate to protective headgear for motor cycle drivers and passengers, the breach of regulations on the wearing of seat belts and the breach of restriction on carrying children in the front of vehicles, that would have to go through the affirmative resolution procedures of both Houses. I have always thought that that was adequate safeguard for Parliament's interests. We have always felt strongly that this Administration should not prejudice the right of Ministers in future to bring proposals before Parliament if the time seemed right.
Given the anxieties that had been expressed, however, and the inherent unlikeliness of any Administration wishing to give wardens powers to deal with endorseable offences, we agreed, as amendment No. 65 reflects, to exclude endorseable offences from any functions that traffic wardens might be asked to carry out in the context of the fixed penalty system. That is how it should be left. The Government have no intention at present, or in the foreseeable future, of allowing traffic wardens to undertake their duties for any new non-endorseable moving offences. If and when any Government ever did

do, it would have to be through the medium of the affirmatiive resolution procedure. The House should not underestimate the safeguards already built into the system in the combination of the 1981 Act and the Bill.
That is why I cannot accept that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is necessary. Therefore, I ask the House not to accept it, but to realise that amendment No. 65 is the one that their Lordships have sent back to us. It excludes endorseable offences from any functions that traffice wardens might be asked to carry out in the context of the fixed penalty system. I sympathise with the view that some jobs should be done by the trained police officer in uniform. We have been talking about those matters We are not talking about extending those powers to traffic wardens in or out of uniform.

Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.

Lords amendment No. 65 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 66 agreed to.

New Clause

GUIDANCE ON APPLICATION OF PART III

Lords amendment: No. 67, after clause 49, insert—?
 . The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to chief officers of police for police areas in respect of the operation of this Part of this Act, with the objective so far as possible of working towards uniformity.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This issue has been debated at length in Committee and since. The amendment reflects what has long been the Government's position—both we and the police hope and intend to achieve as much sensible uniformity as possible in the operation of the fixed penalty but it must not be a straitjacket on detailed points of false procedure from one court to another. This amendment contains that contention in statutory form. I therefore commend it to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 50

CONTROL OF OPERATING CENTRES FOR GOODS VEHICLES
ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS

Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 58, line 2, at end insert
and for the purpose of extending the right to object to or make representations against the grant or variation of such licences to certain authorities, other than local authorities, exercising planning functions

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 108.

Mrs. Chalker: Section 63(3) of the Transport Act 1968 already gives local authorities the right to object in these matters. It relates to objections to the granting or tike variation of an operator's licence by authorities exercising planning functions. The amendment extends that right to other bodies. They now include the Lake District special planning board, the Peak park joint planning board and the Merseyside and London dock development corporations, which also exercise planning functions. It is beneficial to allow those bodies to object.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The Minister kindly invited me to be present when we discussed this matter. The granting of operators' licences includes schedule 4 with which I should like to deal. This matter has been a problem for years in my constituency. Our difficulty was an operator who worked from an unsuitable area in Hackney, South. It would appear prima facie that, under schedule 4, it is easy to cope with someone who is operating in an area that is unsuitable or unsatisfactory for that operation. An authority has the right under section 69B(6) to refuse a licence if it is satisfied that, in the operator's statement for his application, the area is not suitable.
The problem arises when the operator applies for his licence in another area and specifies in his statement in that area exactly what he owns and where he is operating from. The planning authority will examine that statement and determine whether that operator has suitable premises. I shall give an example that occurred in my constituency and that we discussed ad nauseam two years ago.
An operator applied for a licence to operate in a designated area of Tower Hamlets. I have no idea whether it was good, bad or indifferent. Nevertheless, Tower Hamlets gave him his operator's licence. But he never operated from there. He operated in my constituency, in a residential area. He was a bone of contention. He had leased a site from the Crown Estates. The Crown Estates seemed unable or unwilling to do anything about him because it said that, legally, he had a contract to operate from those premises. The operator put his lorries and trailers all around the residential area concerned and we were unable to do anything about it. I was told that he possessed his operator's licence, albeit from another area, and section 66 did not allow anyone to do anything about it, so I patiently pursued ways to alleviate the problem.
Schedule 4 looks all right. However, it is all very well giving additional bodies the right to object but I and others in my constituency could not object because we did not know that an operator was making application somewhere else. I am anxious to see whether there is any way to ensure in the Bill that no operator can operate in any area without having obtained his licence in that area. The planning authorities assure me that as long as the operator has a licence they cannot intervene.
Subsection (6) of schedule 4 provides that
the authority may, instead of refusing the application, issue the licence specifying in it only such place or places referred to in that statement as are not unsuitable for use as an operating centre.
How would that affect the case that I have cited in which we did not know that the operator had obtained a licence, how he obtained it, and the operator did not specify the area in which he intended to work?

Mrs. Chalker: I can genuinely say that I have good news for the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I know that the new section 69A in schedule 4 is complicated but it encompasses all that he asks for. If he studies it, he will see that the operating centre will have to be specified in the operator's licence. Therefore, someone who applies to the metropolitan licensing authority—the metropolitan traffic area—must say where he will operate. It is specifically intended to get over the problem that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others have had to suffer for too long, and I am sure that it has much to do with the campaign that the hon. Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends conducted for some time.
Applications for licences will in future have to be advertised by the operator. There is, therefore, no question of an operator going for a licence on the quiet. Licensing authorities, not local authorities, issue licences. Because licensing authorities receive advice from the Department of Transport, we can ensure that the provisions in schedule 4 are carried through.
We are altering the definition of an operating centre. That will cope with the hon. Gentleman's point about operators nominating a centre in one area and then operating from another where he leaves his lorries in unsuitable places. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's anxieties are allayed and that the House will accept the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 51

IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES ILLEGALLY PARKED, ETC

Lords amendment: No. 69, in page 58, line 3, at beginning insert
Subject to sections (Exemptions from section 51) and (Initial experimental period for immobilisation of vehicles) of this Act

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 70 to 74, 90, 91, 75, 76, 93 and 94.

Mrs. Chalker: These amendments concern the vexed question of wheel clamps. When it was suggested on Report that wheel clamps be introduced, there were many requests that we should be careful to ensure that they could be operated only with local consent, full consultation, and so on. This group of amendments fulfils all the demands made on this issue from both sides of the House at all earlier stages of the Bill.
The amendments ensure that local authorities are involved in deciding the limitations on the use of wheel clamps in any area, while the Secretary of State retains discretion not to agree to an area suggested by a local authority. The designation of an area in which wheel clamps may be used must be by statutory instrument, so the House can always debate the matter. All the designations will be dealt with by the negative resolution procedure, except for those covered by subsection (6) of the new clause in amendment No. 76, in which it is proposed that an initial experiment be confirmed. We have arranged that that should be subject to an affirmative order so that it has the positive support of both Houses of Parliament before it comes into operation. Finally, the amendments give the Secretary of State power to revoke an order subject to parliamentary resolution.
Those were the safeguards sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and many others. I hope that in the Lords amendments we have met all the points of concern.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I hesitate to cross swords with my hon. Friend, but I should not like it to be thought that the amendments remove the objections so forcefully expressed on earlier occasions. I shall not rehearse my objections to clause 51, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as that would probably be out of order. As I said in Committee, I find it obnoxious, and I believe that it will exacerbate the difficult relations between motorists and the


police. Moreover, I believe that three of the Lords amendments are especially likely to make an already undesirable clause—what might be regarded as an anti-motorist clause—a good deal worse.
The first such amendment is No. 70. In our previous discussions we had always understood that the operation of immobilisation devices would be carried out directly by police constables. We are now told that "another person" may be authorised. That means that the immobilisation may take place away from the direct immediate supervision of the police constable concerned—unless there is to be a person walking around with a separate police constable for fixing each device. It will therefore be arbitrary. Some motorists will feel aggrieved because they find that their vehicle has been immobilised not by a policeman—a person who probably commands their confidence and respect—but by some other person who claims to be authorised. That will not be acceptable to motorists.
Lords amendment No. 73 fails to deal with another objection that was raised in Committee. It has so far never been stated that clause 51 deals with wheel clamps. The clause refers to an "immobilisation device", which might be some device other than wheel clamps to prevent the vehicle from being driven. No proper assurance is given that a device will not be used which might affect the operation of the engine, the steering or the gearbox. That is a dangerous loophole. If the clause is about wheel clamps, why does it not refer specifically to wheel clamps? In its present form, it is obnoxious to motorists.
7.45 pm
Lords amendment No. 75 refers to another point that was raised in Committee—the question of parking at approved parking meter spaces. A person may overrun his time. If one is held up, one may not get back in time to put money in the meter or, more properly, to move the car. However, the fact that the meter shows that the money has been spent does not of itself prove that an offence has been committed. One could normally go to court and seek to show that one was innocent of any such offence. It is now suggested, however, that if the police constable or the person authorised by him suspects that no money was put in at the beginning or that the time has run out—the only way that he can know that is because the meter registers a penalty—he can punish the motorist there and then, without any jury, magistrate or other opportunity for the motorist to defend himself. The police officer or the person authorised can put a clamp on the wheels, thereby immobilising the car and allowing the motorist no chance whatever to explain the circumstances. No doubt if it is a genuine case, the person who immobilised the car will be very sorry, but that is not satisfactory to the motorist who was held up for a short time and could not get back to his vehicle. There is no way, other than by noting that the meter shows a penalty, that the person immobilising the car can know that an offence appears to have been committed.
I know that I am a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this subject, as very few people speak up for motorists these days. We are a deprived group. I am proud to be a motorist. I believe that someone should speak up for motorists against the planners who are attempting to make our lives a misery. The amendments make a bad clause worse. I am sorry to find my hon. Friend not only putting them forward but doing so with enthusiasm.

Mrs. Chalker: I am always speaking up for motorists, to the great annoyance of many of my officials. I drive many times a week and I always seem to come back to the office complaining about and asking the reason for something that I have found that I reckon is wrong. I assure my hon. Friend that this Minister at least is always speaking up for motorists, and I know that my colleagues do likewise. My hon. Friend is therefore not alone and I shall join him in speaking up for motorists. However, I must also speak up for those motorists who wander round London trying to find a parking space. It was suggested in Committee, where my hon. Friend was as vociferous in his objections as he has been today, that something must be done about the grave problems, especially in central London but not only there, caused by people who park illegally and break the law.
My hon. Friend objected to the fact that amendment No. 70 refers to "another person". He is taking an unrealistically wide view of the further confirmation provided by the words "under his direction", because the constable on duty must always be in charge and supervise the uniformed vehicle removal officers to whom the phrase relates. It is they who at present assist in the removal of the entire car. There would simply not be enough trained police officers to do what is a very skilled job, but which nevertheless does not require an extensive knowledge of the law provided that the people involved are under the supervision of a police constable. I must therefore reject my hon. Friend's complaints about amendment No. 70.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The hon. Lady should at least take one point made by her hon. Friend, as it has considerable merit. Although I favour the concept of wheel clamps, there is a danger that this will be used as an easy recourse by the authorities. I argued at a recent seminar that a whole range of regulations and activities can be used by the authorities to stop illegal parking. I hope that this will not become an easy way of solving the problem rather than using the existing armoury of actions that could be taken.

Mrs. Chalker: I very much sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that we should use our parking laws properly and enforce them better, but that requires more traffic wardens, and they are not easily found. I am told by the Home Office that for quite a long period there have been shortages in the number of traffic wardens. Until recruitment improves even more than it has in the past 18 months, there will still be problems in central London. There ate, additionally, areas in central London where it does not seem to matter how many traffic wardens are walking around. Motorists still quite openly flout the law. The only deterrent that has been considered—4i is something that we should try—is the wheel clamp or vehicle immobilisation device.
My hon. Friend asked why we call it a "vehicle immobilisation device" rather than a "wheel clamp". At present, I cannot think of anything other than a wheel clamp that could be used. My hon. Friend is naturally cautious about the suggestion, but any vehicle immobilisation device must be of a type approved by the Home Secretary, which is a safeguard. I know that my hon. Friend is thinking of developments in electronics. I can understand why he has that kind of fear. However, there will have to be ministerial approval for any device to be


used, and I am sure that the words would not be extended to other than wheel clamps without considerable debate in the House.
Amendment No. 75 is a new clause which does three things. First, it protects the holders of the disabled persons' orange badge from the possibility of having a wheel clamp put on their car, which is something that all hon. Members wanted.
Secondly, it provides a sanction for abuse of the exemption by able-bodied people, similar to that provided by the Disabled Persons Act 1981. We should have been content to rely on the protection against abuse in that Act but for the fact that the first use of the wheel clamps will be in central London, where the orange badge concessions and, sadly, the offence of abusing them do not at present apply.
Thirdly —this is where my hon. Friend was misled by the length of the amendment—the new clause provides an exemption in that wheel clamps may not be used where a vehicle overstays for up to two hours on a meter. The exemption does not cover vehicles parked at suspended bays or bays that are not authorised for use—those with yellow hoods. It does not apply when the police can establish that the meter has been fed since the initial payment. There has to be proof of feeding the meter, which is illegal.
I am aware that meter feeding in London is far too common and significantly reduces the use of meters for short-stay parking. That is why special reference is made to it in this clause. The two-hour exemption runs from the point at which the initial charge expires. It is not an offence to make use of unexpired time when parking at a meter. In such cases the two hours exemption will run from the expiry of the time available at the meter at the time of parking. In other words, when one comes to the end of the two hours, the end of the time available on the meter, there are two hours during which the wheel clamp would not operate. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's point.
I regret as much as anybody that we cannot get everyone to abide by the existing parking laws without going to this deterrent device. Unfortunately, the way of the world is such that something has to be done in London. With the safeguards now in the Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared at last to give the Bill another try to see whether we can help all those people who spend so much time and fuel finding parking spaces in London.

Mr. Stott: I wish to place on record my appreciation for what their Lordships have done. It was I and my hon. Friends who raised the issue in Committee, and the Minister said that she would go away, look at the problem, come back and legislate. The pressure to do something about the problem in London came from the GLC, under both Conservative and Labour control. It brought pressure to bear on the House, as did the Metropolitan Police, to do something about the awful problem of illegal parking in London.
Illegal parking in the nation's capital is a scandal. People are regularly flouting the traffic law. Clearly something had to be done, in a limited way, to try to prevent anything more happening. I am pleased to say that the safeguards built into the provisions are the ones that we originally wanted. They go a long way to allay the fears

of my hon. Friends and myself about the extension of this provision. If the Minister does not have a friend in the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), she has one in me. I am grateful for the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 70, 71, 72, 72A, 73, 74, 75 and 76 agreed to.

New Clause

AUTHORISATION OF HEAD-WORN APPLIANCES FOR USE
ON MOTOR CYCLES

Lords amendment: No. 77, after clause 52, insert—

" .—(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 33 of the 1972 Act (protective helmets for motor cyclists) immediately before section 33A of that Act (which was inserted by section 27 of the Transport Act 1981)—
Authorisation of head-worn appliances for use on motor cycles

33AA.—(1)The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing (by reference to shape, construction or any other quality) types of appliance of any description to which this section applies as authorised for use by persons driving or riding (otherwise than in sidecars) on motor cycles of any class specified in the regulations.

(2) Regulations under this section—

(a)may impose restrictions or requirements with respect to the circumstances in which appliances of any type prescribed by the regulations may be used; and
(b)may make different provision in relation to different circumstances.

(3) If a person driving or riding on a motor cycle on a road uses an appliance of any description for which a type is prescribed under this section he shall be guilty of an offence if that appliance is not of a type so prescribed or is otherwise used in contravention of regulations under this section.

(4) If a person sells, or offers for sale, an appliance of any such description as authorised for use by persons on or in motor cycles, or motor cycles of any class, and that appliance is not of a type prescribed under this section as authorised for such use, he shall, subject to subsection (5) below, be guilty of an offence.

(5) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the sale or offer for sale of an appliance if he proves that it was sold or, as the case may be, offered for sale for export from Great Britain.

(6) In England or Wales the council of a county or of a London borough, the Greater London Council or the Common Council of the City of London may institute proceedings for an offence under this section.

(7) The provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect in relation to contraventions of subsection (4) of this section as they have effect in relation to contraventions of section 33 of this Act; and in that Schedule, as it has effect by virtue of this subsection—

(a)references to helmets shall be read as references to appliances to which this section applies; and
(b)the reference in paragraph 4(1)(a) to a type which under the principal section could be lawfully sold or offered for sale shall be read as a reference to a type which under this section could be lawfully sold or offered for sale as authorised for use in the manner in question.

(8) This section applies to appliances of any description designed or adapted for use—

(a)with any headgear; or
(b)by being attached to or placed upon the head; (as, for example, eye protectors or earphones).

(9) References in this section to selling or offering for sale includes respectively references to letting on hire and offering to let on hire."

(2) The following entries shall be inserted in Part I of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act (prosecution and punishment of offences) immediately after the entry relating to section 33—

"33AA(3)
Contravention of regulations with respect to use of headworn appliances on motor cycles
Summarily.
£50
-
-
-


33AA(4)
Selling, etc., appliance not of prescribed type as approved for use on motor cycles.
Summarily.
£200.
-
-
–."."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment concerns visors that might be sold separately from crash helmets rather than as an integral part of the helmet. It does not concern the vexed question of types of helmets or approval for helmets, which has to be dealt with separately and not within the new clause. The Government's proposal has been thoroughly considered in another place. Lords amendment No. 77 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring visors or other head-worn appliances to meet specific standards when offered for sale for use while driving or riding a motor cycle on a road.
Additionally, the clause will enable my right hon. Friend, if he so wishes, to ban the use of any head-worn appliances that did not comply with the required standards. Further, it will enable him to restrict or impose conditions on the use of those appliances that he has prescribed. Hon. Members will recall the publicity in August about the use of tinted visors and scratched visors at night. I thought it right to amend the Bill. We now have powers that prescribe that appliances will be restricted not solely to those for use in connection with a helmet, but to those devices on which so much safety depends.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Labour Members will welcome the acceptance of the Lords amendment. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that some of us are concerned that the regulations for visors—detachable visors—should be of the same standard as those that are part of an original, manufactured helmet. Some suggestions have been made that the standards should be somewhat lower than the Department of Transport's suggestion for the level of visibility of these scratched or tinted visors, which would be less for detachable or replaceable visors than the ones attached to the original helmet.
I know that the Minister is aware of this problem, as I have a letter from her. At the moment, unapproved visors that restrict the light to 55 per cent. are available. I am concerned that if the level of visibility through these visors at night is set at one standard, and the day level is set at another, we shall have the nonsense that we expect motor cyclists to change their visors at night. That is nonsense, and those who are used to British weather conditions know that. On a stormy, thundery day at 2 o'clock in the afternoon it can be as dark as it is at dusk, or after even 6, 7, or 8 o'clock in the summer. The regulations will have to be carefully examined. They cannot be separated. Day and night regulations must be the same. There must be 80 per cent. light transmission for all types of visor, whether sold with the crash helmet or sold later.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 78 agreed to.

New Clause

SPECIMENS OF BREATH FOR BREATH TESTS, ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 79, after clause 52, insert—

 . In section 12(3) of the 1972 Act as inserted by Schedule 8 to the Transport Act 1981 (circumstances in which a person fails to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test or for analysis), the following words shall be added at the end "and provided in such a way as to enable the objective of the test or analysis to be satisfactorily achieved".

8 pm

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment, designed to clarify a point of uncertainly in the law on drinking and driving. It has come to light as the result of a recent court case, in which a driver who had a blood alcohol content well in excess of the legal limit none the less managed to escape conviction on a procedural technicality relating to the way in which he had provided a breath sample in the initial roadside screening test. In that test, the driver succeeded in producing a false negative result by inflating the bag with two separate shallow breaths rather than the one continuous breath required in the manufacturer's instructions. The court, however, accepted the driver's contention that he had in fact supplied a breath specimen within the terms of the law and that his subsequent arrest by the police was therefore unlawful.
While we are fairly sure that the decision will create no difficulties for the new evidential breath testing procedure, where one must give a continuous and deep breath, there is a risk that suspects could produce false negative results in roadside screening tests which do not use the evidential breath tester. That test is carried out at the police station. Therefore, the effectiveness of the new law would undoubtedly be impaired. The amendment, which closes the loophole, is beneficial and right. We want greater safety on our roads and, whoever is in Government, such loopholes should be closed.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 53

ALTERATION OF PROCEDURE. GOVERNING THE HIGHWAY
CODE

Lords amendment: No. 80, in page 63, line 7, leave out from first "on" to ", he" in line 9 and insert
the passing, amendment or repeal of any statutory provision

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 81.

Mrs. Chalker: These are technical amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 81 agreed to.

New Clause

APPROVAL OF RADAR SPEED MEASURING DEVICES

Lords amendment: No. 82, after clause 54 insert—
 . There shall be inserted after section 78A of the 1967 Act the following section—


78B. On the prosecution of a person for any speeding offence, evidence of the measurement of any speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment at end insert
'(in regulations conforming to a performance standard specified in those regulations)'.
The public need confidence in the equipment used for radar speed measuring—

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hughes: When discussing a previous amendment, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) got himself into a terrible lather and said that no one spoke for the motorist. The Opposition and, I am sure, the Minister speak for the motorist. However, it is necessary not to have excessive regard for the motorist who is committing an illegal act. The difficulty with all motorists is that once they get into that little cocoon of a vehicle, they think that they are immune to both danger and the law. I dare say that I am no different.
It is important that everyone should have confidence in the equipment used to determine speed. I understand that a number of cases have either failed in the courts or been abandoned by the prosecution because of challenges against the equipment used. The issue was canvassed at length in another place, where the Government disputed the number of cases involved and implied that the issue was not as important as some of us believe it to be.
We are all concerned to ensure that speeding motorists, causing danger to life and limb, are properly prosecuted and fairly convicted. The other side of the equation is that it is important that charges are not frustrated simply because of a technicality about the admissibility of evidence or the standard of equipment used. The courts, the motorists and the general public must be satisfied on these matters.
While the Opposition welcome Lords amendment No. 82, as far as it goes, we must point out that it does not meet our main point. The performance standard of the equipment should meet certain regulations under the control of the Secretary of State. The more that I think about the matter, the more I feel that we were remiss in earlier debates in Committee and on Report in not insisting that the equipment used should be calibrated at a regular interval of six months to ensure that it was operating efficiently, to the benefit of the motorist and the courts. However, we did not proceed with that point at the time, so I raise no complaints about the Government not dealing with it.
In the area of the motorist and his defence, the Government have been guilty of being too much concerned with the technicalities and the administration, and have not taken the wider view. As Lords amendment No. 82 stands, it simply provides that a device must be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. The standards might be set by the manufacturer, and the Home Office research laboratory will check it. The Government should take the lead and set standards and ensure that they are capable of being enforced.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that a balance must be struck between the vitally important consideration of road safety and that of fairness in the conviction of motorists charged with speeding offences. It is clear that since the matter was last debated in the House there has been some movement by the Home Office. However, I feel that that movement has been with the aim of stilling criticism in the House and in another place and that there have been no concessions as yet concerning the validity of the criticisms about the equipment used.
I favour the amendments moved in another place by Lord Underhill to provide a standard for the testing performance, operation and training in respect of these devices. Since this matter was last before the House, there has been discussion between the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Standards Institution to try to work out an appropriate British standard. The chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers told all chief constables in July that he was concerned that the Home Office was trying to persuade chief constables to accept a British standard. That was the view of the Home Office at that time. The chairman of the traffic committee said that the Home Office had threatened to force the use of the standard on the police if the police did not voluntarily accede to it. That was the background.
We know also that the Association of Chief Police Officers issued in 1980 what it called a "user requirement" for hand-held speed detector devices with what it called "essential minimum requirements". It is clear that, in the two years that have elapsed, devices which have not measured up, in at least two key respects, to those so-called "essential minimum requirements" have been in use by police forces throughout the country and have resulted in many convictions. The two requirements are, first, that it should be ensured that there is a positive identification of the target vehicle, and, second, that the operating sequence is not affected by external interference.
Clearly, although in July the Home Office sought to pressurise the police to accept the British standard following the reaction of the police, in particular as a result of the tactics which ACPO worked out at a conference in July, the Home Office has yielded. It has gone but a small part of the way to what is clearly desirable in this connection. In effect, it has been hijacked by the police en route to the best solution.
One of the major issues raised in the debate in the other place was the comparitive quality of the technical advice that is available to Ministers in this highly specialised sphere and the advice that was available to Lord Underhill and others who spoke for the Opposition. I note, for example, that in the concession made in the other place on 14 October 1982 the Minister said:
I hope it would be agreed that the standards that will be achieved in the Home Office Scientific Research and Development Branch will be satisfactory … What we propose is that the branch will examine all the radar devices currently in use and advise the Secretary of State as to the appropriateness of approving the equipment; the need to issue guidance on operating procedures and training will also be considered".—
[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1982; Vol. 434, c. 992.]
I hope that the Minister can add some flesh and bones to that. Is the matter now to be left as open as was suggested in the other place?
The Home Office now says that it has sufficient expertise properly to evaluate the various devices that are currently marketed and that are likely to be marketed. I refer to a letter written to me by Lord Belstead, who was then the responsible Minister at the Home Office. The letter is dated 24 July 1981, and it says:
The Home Office did not then have, and still does not have, the resources to evaluate the wide range of equipment currently available, not to speak of any future devices which the police may wish to use".
That was the Home Office position in July 1981.
Just over a year has passed. What has happened? Is it a fact that the Home Office has recruited a number of qualified personnel? Is it a fact that the people who at that time were considered not competent properly to evaluate the devices have now been upgraded in the esteem of the Home Office? Why is it now, on an issue which essentially cries out for examination by the BSI—highly regarded, certainly competent—that the Home Office considers that it now has that expertise which it denied so clearly in the letter of July 1981?
Therefore, there is the matter of the comparative expertise that is available. Since I have doubts on the quality of the expertise that is available to the Home Office, I want to consider some particular statements made by the Minister who answered in the other place. He said, for example, that
the prospect of achieving a design breakthrough banning radio interference altogether is remote".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1982; Vol. 434, c. 993.]
However, I have documents, both from this country and from the United States—from the National Bureau of Standards, the Law Enforcements Standard Laboratory, the National Highway Safety Administration, the Federal Communications Commission and more recently from the Florida Radar Commission—which confirm that, as far back as 1977, in the United States equipment was available on which speed measurements taken could not be affected by radio interference. I concede that Britain still uses relatively outdated, first generation equipment, whereas the United States has moved to second generation, more sophisticated equipment.
8.15 pm
Motor magazine quoted a case at Wimbledon magistrates' court in which Mr. Toothill, a Home Office expert who appeared for the prosecution, agreed under cross-examination that many of the criticisms of the radar gun's performance put forward by the defence were well established. He agreed that the reading which is supposed to appear on the display when the gun receives a confused signal could malfunction.
It was also said in the other place that a reading caused by radio interference has a distinctive "flutter". Expert evidence which is available to the motoring organisations and to me suggests that that is not true and that radio interference can manifest itself as accelerating, decelerating or constant speed readings. Citizens band users advise me and the motoring associations that they now whistle into their microphones when they see a police speed trap on the horizon to cause confusion. One knows the problems that can be caused by CB equipment.
It was said in the other place that, should misleading signals be generated, thus causing a false reading, they are easily detected and that one can guarantee that such a speed reading will be made known to the operator. I am told that none of the equipment has the necessary circuitry to give that degree of confidence.
It was said, and has been said frequently, that such devices do no more than corroborate a police officer's visual observation based on his experience. The Minister may know that when Motor magazine wrote what it called the K15 file it observed errors of about 11 miles per hour in the observations of an experienced police officer who was the training officer for the Dorset police force with some 20 years' experience. Accuracy was only possible when vehicles were closer to him than 150 yards.
I am advised that the K15 device that is used by the Dorset police, which is the second most popular radar device in use in Britain, has severe faults. I shall not deal with the many cases that have occurred since the Bill was first introduced in the House, but, for example, the Minister will be aware of the case of the Police v Knopp at Reading magistrates' court where the police lost a case, which was based on the evidence of two police officers and a Muniquip and costs of £1,500 were awarded against the police.
It may be said, as it was in the other place, that when evidence is disputed the courts are capable of deciding when the evidence is unsatisfactory. I remind the Minister that a defendant. Mr. Desmond Hughes, was convicted before the local magistrates' court. He had some expertise in electronics and successfully appealed. Most people who fail at magistrates' courts do not have the financial resources to appeal.
Already several summonses have been withdrawn by police forces in Avon and Somerset and even in Nottingham where Mr. McClachlan is the area chief constable and the secretary of ACPO. The main point made by Home Office Ministers is that their resources are now sufficient to allay public fears relating to the efficiency of prosecution procedures in this area. They also said that they have the necessary expertise. If the Minister was anxious about public disquiet over radar guns, she should have gone to the BSI which attracts far greater public confidence and is much respected. The Home Office should not have been diverted from its original intentions by police pressure, as it was in July.
The Minister will know of many developments by companies manufacturing these devices during that time. She will know too of the many questions raised about some of the individuals who gave evidence in support of the prosecution. For example, the Thorn EMI expert used by the police in support of the Muniquip device stated in court that radio interference would only affect devices from a few yards. However, the company's own research showed that interference could affect devices over a distance of 280 metres, thus causing false readings. I am advised that radio interference can override the signal from an approaching vehicle when the vehicle is more hart 100 yards from the radar gun.
We concede that the Home Office has moved some way as a result of criticism in this House and another place, but it has done the minimum in an effort to restore the credibility of these devices. Many questions must be asked about the advice that the Home Office is receiving. The Home Office has not done sufficient to allay both the justifiable fears expressed in the motoring press and the courts, and the general public's considerable anxiety.

Mrs. Chalker: The amendment was debated at great length in another place and the wider issue of the approval of radar speed checking devices has received much attention since the subject was last debated.
It may be helpful if I outline how far the Government have moved to meet the anxieties and wishes that have been expressed. When the Bill left this House, I undertook to consult the Secretary of State to see whether it was possible for him to provide resources and facilities to allow Home Office approval of this equipment in the near future. It was felt that to do so would to some extent infringe the prerogative of chief officers to select their own equipment and that the resources would be difficult to find within the constraints under which all Government Departments work.
After much discussion, both in the Home Office and in another place, I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State has agreed that this equipment can be brought within the ambit of Home Office approval procedure. Amendment No. 82 is the first stage of that agreement.
Although the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) still has fears on this subject, I believe that we are moving in the right direction. It is certainly the direction that his right hon. and hon. Friends urged on me at all stages of the Bill. Obviously it is in the interests of the police and the prosecution to use only devices that are demonstrably accurate. If they are using a device that has not been proven to be accurate, they have lost half their case even before beginning. Everybody in the House is agreed that the devices used by police should measure speed accurately.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East cast what were for him some unusual aspersions. We have carefully studied everything that has been said on this issue, because we realise that many people are worried about it. The reason I cannot favour the Opposition amendment is twofold. First, the phrase "performance standard" has no legal meaning, and to define it for this specific case as against a general legal definition would be extremely difficult. Secondly, the amendment ties approval to regulations.
I understand that "performance standard" is a term of art understood by engineers. It does not have a legal meaning when divorced from references to a British standard. The Opposition amendment would mean that our scientists would have to devise their own idea of a "performance standard" and turn it into a list of key points which would then have to be incorporated into regulations. I do not think that regulations are the right place for technical specification.
The idea carries with it a great disadvantage. It would mean that one could not raise the standard, for example, without making new regulations, all of which could involve parliamentary and departmental time. It would delay the process of getting the benefits of the scientific research, of the work that the scientists are doing and their conclusions to the public.
I cannot see the merit of that, particularly when we already have a good tried and tested system for approving equipment which has been much used in recent years.

Mr. Anderson: Is not the point the Minister is making against the use of regulations equally valid against the construction and use regulations, which are regularly amended? If she is now saying that regulations and a standard are not appropriate, why was the Home Office leaning on the ACPO in July?

Mrs. Chalker: I am not a Home Office Minister, but I believe that the construction and use regulations covering

vehicles are in a different league from a radar gun that is used by a police officer to corroborate his own view that a car is going too fast. We are talking about two different things. The system that we are using for the approval of the radar guns is the same system that has been used by Governments of both parties since 1968 for approving breath-testing equipment.
I am talking here not about equipment used at the roadside, which is relatively simple, but about the highly sophisticated evidential equipment that will come into use next year. I have said that a radar gun is used only to corroborate a police officer's opinion that a person is committing an offence. The result cannot stand on its own in court. However, a result from an evidential breath-testing machine will on its own lead to conviction, yet Parliament decided only last year that it was a sufficient safeguard to ensure that the evidential breath-testing equipment was of a type approved by the Secretary of State.
I know that mention was made in the other place of Home Office scientists, and I am sad that tonight the hon. Member for Swansea, East should have cast aspersions on the quality of their work and advice.

Mr. Anderson: I was quoting from a Home Office letter.

Mrs. Chalker: That Home Office letter related to a situation more than a year ago. I shall come to that in a moment. The Home Office scientists who are responsible for making recommendations to my right hon. Friend have said that they could not lower the standards that would prevail in the examination of radar equipment. We are aiming for more accurate standards at each stage. If, in practice, a device is found in any way wanting, I have it on the authority of several chief police officers who have spoken directly to me that they will instruct their forces to take that device out of service.
There are checks to be used before the device is put into operation and checks immediately after the device has been operated. I have had discussions with three chief police officers, and an impromptu demonstration. Those officers, who had no warning that I would ask such a question, told me that two types of device—I am sorry but I cannot immediately recall which types—had been fully checked and were accurate. The constable who demonstrated the devices told me that if they had any doubts they would not use those devices.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East asked why the Home Office now had the resources and scientists that it did not have in 1981. As time goes by, it is possible to allow those who have been working on other devices, such as the evidential breath tester, to concentrate on new issues. I understand that there has been much more work in the past 12 months than when that letter was written to the hon. Gentleman in July 1981.

Mr. Anderson: How can an expert in breath testing be moved to a totally different world, that of advanced, sophisticated electronics, and be expected so to transfer his expertise as to make a useful contribution?

Mrs. Chalker: I was referring to senior scientists who oversee such work. The Home Office and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory continually move from one project to another. Those who examine the work caried out


by groups of scientists may not all be experts in electronics or in other branches of science. However, they must monitor, supervise and probe the work of those scientists.
There has been much disquiet about radio interference. We can all cite different court cases. However, the police assure me that they do not intend to use any device that cannot be relied upon. The testing of such devices is crucial and they cannot be used without such tests.
This matter has been fully debated. The amendment shows that we have moved a good way to bring the equipment that can be used within the ambit of Home Office approval. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the Lords amendment but I regret that I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Robert Hughes: With leave of the House. I listened carefully to the Minister. No doubt we shall return to this matter because, unfortunately, there will probably be another Transport Bill next Session. However, in view of the Minister's remarks, which need to be studied with care, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment No. 82 agreed to.

New Clause

PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH CROWN VEHICLES

Lords amendment: No. 83, after clause 55, insert—

" .—(1) In section 188 of the 1972 Act (application to the Crown), for subsections (8) and (9) there shall be substituted the following subsections

"(8) Where an offence under this Act is alleged to have been committed in connection with a vehicle in the public service of the Crown, proceedings may be brought in respect of the offence against a person nominated for the purpose on behalf of the Crown; and subject to subsection (9) below, where any such offence is committed any person so nominated shall also be guilty of the offence as well as any person actually responsible for the offence (but without prejudice to proceedings against any person so responsible).

(9) Where a person is convicted of an offence by virtue of subsection (8) above—

(a)no order may be made on his conviction save an order imposing a fine;
(b)payment of any fine imposed on him in respect of that offence may not be enforced against him; and
(c)apart from the imposition of any such fine, the conviction shall be disregarded for all purposes other than any appeal (whether by way of case stated or otherwise)."

(2) The subsections substituted by subsection (1) above for subsections (8) and (9) of section 188 of the 1972 Act (referred to below in this section as the 1972 Act subsections) shall also be substituted—

(a)>for section 97(4) of the 1967 Act; and
(b)for section 102(3) of the Transport Act 1968;

renumbered in the former case as subsections (4) and (5) and in the latter case as subsections (3) and (3A) (and taking the reference in each of those subsections to the other as correspondingly renumbered).

(3) As inserted by subsection (2) above in section 102 of the Transport Act 1968, subsection (8) of the 1972 Act subsections shall have effect with the substitution of the words "this Part of this Act" for the words "this Act"."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment seeks to put right an unsatisfactory situation whereby, through no fault of his own, an officer nominated as a departmental representative in court proceedings in respect of a Crown vehicle in the service of that Department may be personally prejudiced.
The Government therefore propose to retain the concept of the nominated officer but to modify it so that it operates in a more equitable way. Accordingly, the amendment was introduced in another place to provide that court proceedings may still be brought where a Department is involved in an offence, but that the nominated "defendant" should not be personally prejudiced as a result of conviction. Bearing in mind the considerations I have already explained, this would appear to be the best solution to a somewhat awkward problem, and certainly one that was suggested to me in earlier debates on the Bill.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause

MARKING OF BUILDERS' SKIPS

Lords amendment: No. 84, after clause 55, insert—
 . In section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of builders' skips), at the end of subsection (4)(a) (duty of owner of skip deposited on highway to secure that it is properly lighted) there shall be inserted the following words "and, where regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section require it to be marked in accordance with the regulations (whether with reflecting or fluorescent material or otherwise), that it is so marked.".

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lards in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments No. 133.

Mrs. Chalker: The amendments meets earlier requests, because the new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring skips left on the highway to be marked with reflective, fluorescent or other similar material. It would render it unlawful—once regulations are made—for a skip to be left on the highway without such markings, and render failure to comply with the obligation an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £100. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. Following consultations with representatives of the building industry and traffic sign manufacturers, we shall be able to proceed to make regulations.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause

EXTENDED PENSION PROVISION FOR MEMBERS OF
TRANSPORT BOARDS

Lords amendment: No. 85, after clause 56 insert—
 ., In paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Transport Act 1962 (salaries, pensions etc. of members of Boards of nationalised transport industries), in sub-paragraph (1)(b) (Minister may determine pensions to be paid on the retirement or death n)f members of Boards), for the words "on the retirement or death" there shall be substituted the words "in the case".

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take Lords amendment No. 134.

Mrs. Chalker: Both the amendments are technical. They are designed to rectify a problem which has come to light in connection with a procedure for contracting pension arrangements made for board members in the transport industries under schedule 1 of the Transport Act 1962 out of the State pension scheme. The amendments would not extend pension rights to any board member who did not enjoy them under existing legislation. They would simply remove an anomaly and bring the provisions of the 1962 Act into line with those of more recent legislation applying to the pensions of board members. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause

REFUSAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF
DISABLED PERSONS BADGES

Lords amendment: No. 86 after Clause 56 insert—
 . In section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons) after subsection (7) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(7A) Where the prescribed conditions are met in the case of any person, then—

(a)if he applies to a local authority for the issue of a badge under this section, the authority may by notice refuse the application; and
(b)if he holds a badge issued under this section by the authority, the authority may by notice require him to return the badge to them.

The conditions that may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection are conditions relating to the misuse of badges issued under this section.

(7B) A notice under subsection (7A) above may be given by post.

(7C) A person whose application is refused under subsection (7A) above or who is required to return his badge under that subsection may, within the prescribed time, appeal to the Secretary of State who may confirm or reverse the decision of the local authority; and, if he reverses it, the authority shall issue a badge accordingly or, as the case may be, the requirement to return the badge shall cease to have effect.

(7D) A badge which is required to be returned to the issuing authority by virtue of subsection (6) above may not be displayed on any vehicle; and a badge which is required to be so returned by virtue of a notice under subsection (7A) above shall be returned within the prescribed time and may not be displayed on any vehicle after that time.

(7E) Regulations under this section may provide for the procedure to be followed in connection with appeals under subsection (7C) above ; but the Secretary of State shall consult with the Council on Tribunals before making regulations that so provide." ."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow disabled people who are refused a new orange parking badge, or asked to return their existing one because of persistent misuse, to appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of the local authority. It meets requests made at all stages of the Bill. I hope that the House will accept it.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause

PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF APPLICANTS FOR EXEMPTION FROM WEARING SEAT BELTS

Lords amendment: No. 87, after clause 57 insert—
 .—(1) The Secretary of State may make payments out of money provided by Parliament in respect of the examination of applicants falling within any class mentioned in subsection (2) below, being applicants for medical certificates required as a condition of any exception prescribed by regulations under section 33A or 33B of the 1972 Act (wearing of seat belts).

(2)The classes referred to in subsection (1) above are

(a) those in receipt of—
(i) attendance allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975;
(ii) mobility allowance under section 37A of that Act;
(iii) disablement pension under section 57 of that Act at a weekly rate increased by virtue of section 61(1) of that Act (constant attendance needed); or
(iv) an allowance under article 14 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1978 (constant attendance allowance);

(b)) those in receipt of—
 () i
(i) family income supplement; or
 () ii
(ii) any benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976; and their dependants;

(c) those provided with invalid carriages or other vehicles under subsection (1) of section 46 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or in receipt of grants under subsection (3) of that section in respect of invalid carriages or other vehicles which belong to them; and

>(d)those whose names are in the register of disabled persons maintained under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) so as to omit any of the classes mentioned in that subsection or add to or substitute for any of those classes other classes of any description."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take Lords amendment No. 88. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the amendments involve privilege.

Mrs. Chalker: The regulations bringing in compulsory seat belt wearing were approved by Parliament just before the Summer Recess, and will come into effect on 31 January 1983. There are few categories of exemption, but the most important of those is the one for medical reasons. For people to be so exempt they must hold a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner to the effect that it is inadvisable on medical grounds for them to wear a seat belt. The Government decided that because of the decision by the BMA we must provide free examinations for those who were most in need—the disabled and other categories of people on low incomes. Since that would be a continuing service, it would not be proper for the expenditure implications to be covered by the Appropriation Acts. The Secretary of State is therefore taking the necessary powers in this clause. Lords amendment 88 enables an Order in Council to be made for Northern Ireland, subject to negative resolution, containing similar provisions.

Mr. Booth: This clause is a piece of elegant language designed to cover up an extremely flabby legal provision.
The clause does not correspond to the Minister's statement. It does not say that certain categories of people must have free examinations. It says that the Secretary of State may make payments out of moneys provided by Parliament for the categories listed in subsection (2) of the clause. Subsection (3) of the clause provides that the Secretary of State can amend subsection (2). He can therefore alter the categories of persons eligible.
I shall use layman's language to describe a legal proposition. The clause empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for just about anything he likes for the purpose of making payments to applicants for medical examination for exemption from wearing seat belts.
In speaking on the money resolution the Minister said that the Government had calculated costs. Were the calculations made on the basis that everyone would have his full medical fees paid? Is it assumed that the fee will always be that recommended by the BMA or that the doctor may charge more or less than the recommended fee? One person may go to Harley Street and another to the local surgery.

Mrs. Chalker: We are talking of the money that will be expended through the DHSS medical service for the free examination of everyone within the categories listed in the money resolution and in the Bill. We are talking not of a person who visits a doctor of his own accord but of someone covered by the DHSS medical service. It is that examination for which the House has voted money.

Mr. Booth: Is that a way to ensure that only certain people in the DHSS medical service will test a person in the categories if he wishes to be exempt from payment for the certificate? How are the payments made within the service?
It has been assumed that any doctor could be asked to certify that a person can have a medical exemption, and, if that doctor turned him down, the person could go to another. Could recompense then be claimed from the DHSS for that expenditure?

Mrs. Chalker: The amendments deal only with people eligible for free medical examination by members of the DHSS medical service. They do not cover reimbursement for people who go to a doctor of their choice and who do not fall within the exempted categories covered by the money resolution.
The regulations are to provide a new service for people who need a vehicle to get to work because they are disabled, who might have a limited income and who could not easily use their own doctor. They could have a free examination through the DHSS medical service, which already carries out medical examinations for many other DHSS benefits. The regulations do not cover payments to private doctors who undertake a medical examination perhaps leading to exemption from wearing seat belts. The £300,000 for England, and pro rata amounts for Scotland and Wales, is only to reimburse the DHSS for its free medical examinations of those who are entitled to them.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation.
To make that calculation the Minister must have decided which categories will be entitled to use the service. That is not what the clause says. It appears that there are no such categories at present and that there will not be until the Secretary of State decides how to use his powers under subsection (3).

Mrs. Chalker: My previous remarks were correct. No regulations need be made. The classes in section 2 stand unless and until an order is made under section 3. That order would be subject to parliamentary control under clause 73(4). The categories of people entitled to free medical exemption are spelt out in the money resolution passed in the House some time ago. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's questions.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 88 agreed to. [Special entry.'

New Clause

APPLICATION TO CROWN

Lords amendment: No. 89, after the words last inserted, insert—

" . The following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a)section 24; and
(b)section 51 and (Exemptions from section 51);
apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 123.

Mrs. Chalker: The amendments apply various provisions of the Bill to Crown vehicles and correct and anomaly in the application of the penalty points system to persons and vehicles in the service of the Crown.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 58

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Lords amendments Nos. 90 and 91 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 92, in page 67, line 22, at end insert—

"( ) Before making—

(a)an order under section 28(2) or (5) of this Act;
(b)an order to which section (Initial experimental period for immobilisation of vehicles)(6) of this Act applies ; or
(c)regulations under section 48(1) of this Act;
the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
When we discussed consultation in connection with fixed penalties earlier, I was happy to give an undertaking to bring forward an amendment to require the Secretary of State to consult as he sees fit before making orders or regulations. The Government were also happy to accept an amendment in another place requiring consultation about the experimental use of wheel clamps.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 93 agreed to.

Clause 61

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment No. 94 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 95, in page 68, line 35, leave out "section 56" and insert
sections 56 (Extended pension provision for members of transport Boards) and (Northern Ireland)".

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is consequential on two new clauses. I hope that hon. Members will accept it because it enables a negative resolution Order in Council to provide free examinations in Northern Ireland and to extend pension provisions for members of transport boards in Northern Ireland.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 96 and 97 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

AMENDMENTS OF TRANSPORT ACT 1968 RELATING TO
OPERATORS' LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 98, in page 81, line 42, at end insert—
( ) Where a licensing authority is precluded by section 69B(5) of this Act from refusing an application for an operator's licence, the authority may not attach any condition to the licence under this section without first giving the applicant for the licence an opportunity to make representations to the authority with respect to the effect on his business of any condition the authority proposes to attach; and where the applicant makes any such representations the authority shall give special consideration to those representations in determining whether to attach the proposed condition on granting the licence.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, after "give", leave out "special".
Many of the amendments that were moved formally arose because of a commitment by the Minister to consider points made by the Opposition either in Committee or on Report. We appreciate her consideration.
I shall confine myself to the narrow point on the use of the word "special". Lords amendment No. 98 deals with the environmental conditions that may be attached to a licence and states that, where an authority intends to apply such conditions, the applicant must be heard and the authority must give special consideration. However, a word such as "special" is likely to lead to widespread litigation and could frustrate the aims of the Bill, which are to impose satisfactory environmental conditions on operating centres and licensees.
The problem with the use of such a word is that we must abide by the words in the Bill and not by what the Minister says. Lord Avon, on being questioned about the meaning of "special", said that it meant "careful and sympathetic". However, in Chambers' dictionary the word is said to mean
particular, peculiar, distinctive, exceptional, additional to the ordinary, detailed and intimate".
"Sympathetic" is said to mean
Acting or done in sympathy, induced by sympathy, congenial and compassionate.
There is nothing wrong with that except that it is not in the Bill. The definition of "careful" is given as "full of care, heedful".
As we know from bitter experience in the case of Bromley v. GLC, all the courts will do is define the meaning of the word in the Bill. If the word "special" were left out, the Lords amendment would read:
the authority shall give consideration to those representations".
In Chambers Dictionary, consideration is defined as "careful thought". That is all an applicant is entitled to get.
It could be proved whether careful thought had been given, but it would be extremely difficult to prove that special consideration had been given.
The Minister has so far managed to bat throughout the day without giving way on anything. I suggest that the Opposition amendment is one that she could accept in all reasonableness.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) tempts me frequently, but I do not give in.
The Bill extends the power of licensing authorities to attach a condition of licence to include conditions aimed at minimising bad effects on the environment. We are all agreed on that. It has never been part of our intention that responsible road haulage companies and jobs should be threatened as a result of new measures. We have stressed throughout the discussions on the Bill that in striking the right balance between environment and business considerations a licensing authority will have to form a special and reasonable judgment in each case if it attaches any conditions to a licence. We recognise that there is a genuine concern that the conditions attached to a licence could be so onerous as to prejudice the running of a business.
The Lords amendment is designed to make clear our intention that the new provisions must be operated fairly in these cases and that full account must be taken of the rights of existing legitimate operators. It provides that in cases where there is no material change in the operations to be covered, the licensing authority must grant a licence unless parking arrangements are unsatisfactory. He will not be able to attach any conditions to the licence without giving the applicant an opportunity to make representations about the effects on his business. He will have to give any such representations special consideration.
I accept that "special" is not a technical term but it must be construed in its ordinary sense. It is used in other legislation—even in road traffic legislation—without causing difficulties. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the special reasons for not disqualifying drivers in section 93(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972. There are other instance where it applies. I do not think that it would open up the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The licensing authority will of course have to take into account all the matters that are put to it, as it would always do, but where there is no change in the operations to be covered we want it to consider particularly carefully matters concerning the effect of any environmental conditions proposed on the operation of the business and, indeed, on jobs.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment and support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister has drawn our attention to the Road Traffic Act 1972 and to the special reasons for not disqualifying a driver. I would suggest to her that "special reasons" can be so defined and explained, but "special consideration" is another matter. How does one show that one has given specially careful thought to something? Does it require a five, 10 or 15-minute discussion? I suspect that the hon. Lady has been tempted not by me but by her Department and has fallen for the blandishments of officials who have told her that the Lords amendment is acceptable.
I have no desire to argue with their Lordships at this hour of the night that they should accept an amendment


to their amendment, but the hon. Lady will find in time that the purpose of the amendment, and the operator's conditions, which we fully accept, could be undermined and be costly in litigation. However, the hon. Lady has tempted me and I shall fall for the temptation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment No. 98 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 99, in page 83, line 7, after "effects" insert "on environmental conditions"

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 100 to 102 and 105.

Mrs. Chalker: These are technical amendments which I hope will be accepted. They fulfil undertakings given previously.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 100 to 102 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 103, in page 85, leave out lines 22 to 33.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is also a technical amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 104, in page 86, line 10, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 15.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 126 and 129.

Mrs. Chalker: These amendments aim primarily to leave intact the requirements concerning suitability of operating centres inserted in the 1968 Act by the Road Traffic Act 1974. These are not entirely superseded by the new provisions. The licensing authorities have found them useful in some circumstances. It is sensible that they should remain.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 105 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 106, in page 86, line 26, at end insert—
 . In section 87(3) of that Act (inquiries by licensing authorities as to proposed exercise of powers under section 69), after "69" there shall be inserted the words "or 69F".

In section 91 of that Act (regulations and orders for purposes of Part V)—

(a)in paragraph (a), for the words "section 69" there shall be substituted the words "sections 69 and 69F'; and
(b)in paragraph (d), after "69" there shall be inserted the words "or 69F'."

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 130.

Mrs. Chalker: It will, I believe, be found that all the remaining Lords amendments from Lord amendment No. 106 to the end of the Bill have either been discussed already or are technical amendments. I suggest that Lords amendment No. 106 and remaining amendments to the end of the Bill should be taken en bloc formally.

Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 134 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — British Gas Corporation

Mr. Edward Rowlands: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the British Gas Corporation (Disposal of Offshore Oilfield Interests) Directions 1982 (S.I , 1982, No. 1131), dated 4th August 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th August, be annulled.
The directions are a mean and petty thing, to say the least. They are also rather absurd, as we shall show. I shall examine first what the directions are all about. British Gas has four modest minority interests in four North Sea oil licences. Yet under the directions it is being forced by the Government to establish subsidiaries to prepare these modest minority irterests for privatisation. We are being asked to set up not one, two or three subsidiaries but six subsidiaries.
I do not know those who are responsible for drafting the directions. I do not know whether the Department of Energy has flipped its lid or gone bonkers, or whether there is some plague or infection going around that manifests itself in. setting up subsidiaries—a form of subsidiaritis. By any standards, these are some of the silliest directions presented by any Government.
I turn now to what each subsidiary is supposed to hold and do. Subsidiary A, listed in the statutory instrument, is to hold all the assets of BGC in the North Sea, all four modest minority interests in the four licences. One would not consider that exactly a large piece of action in the North Sea. One would have thought, however, that it would be enough to enable a debate to take place on that subsidiary. However, there are to be subsidiaries B, C, D and E, each of which will hold little bits of the BGC's oil interests. Into one subsidiary will be put the 25 per cent. share in one BGC licence in the Fulmar field, for example. A completely new subsidiary will be established into which will be put the 25 per cent. share in, say, the North-West Hutton field. That is incredible and foolish enough, but another subsidiary will hold the 10 per cent. BGC holding in the Beryl field. That is the character of the directions. All that is to prepare for privatisation. We must presume that the way is also being prepared for four mini-Britoils with four mini-Shelbournes as chairmen. One is bad enough. The concept of four mini-Britoils with four mini-Shelbournes is a nightmare.
All that is being done in the name of the grand principle of privatisation with which the Secretary of State is closely associated in the Conservative Party. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is present. Unfortunately, he has already given that principle a bad name because of the way in which he handled the Amersham scandal. The directions will reduce the principle to low farce with the establishment of this multiplicity of subsidiaries. The right hon. Gentleman must have been the one who spread the infection called subsidiaritis to the Department of Energy.
Pushing back the frontiers of the State is what the directions are all about. BGC' holds four small interests in fields that are entirely dominated by American oil companies. That has nothing to do with the frontiers of the State. Those are minority holdings in fields that are dominated by the Americans. BGC has a 10 per cent. interest in the Beryl field and the other 90 per cent. is held by a combination of American companies. There is no question of pushing back the frontiers of the State. It is a


modest holding in a predominantly American controlled and owned North Sea oilfield. It is the same with the Montrose, Fulmar and other fields.
All that BGC has done is to behave, as many Conservative Members have demanded of State corporations, sensibly commercially with modest diversification out of its traditional task and function into acquiring modest minority shareholdings and percentages in those oilfields.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. Will he explain why the National Coal Board was directed to give up its oil interests?

Mr. Rowlands: I shall explain the useful function that BGC's minority holding has had.

Mr. Eggar: Answer my question.

Mr. Rowlands: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point. I acknowledge it.

Mr. Eggar: Come on. The hon. Gentleman should answer it now.

Mr. Rowlands: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point later.
First, I should like to make the simple point that that sensible, modest, commercial diversification by BGC is what was envisaged in the Gas Act 1972, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. It gave BGC the power and the opportunity to go into related oilfield developments. That Act has never been repealed. The provisions were not repealed in the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982. We must presume that the Secretary of State and his colleagues think that that is a sensible legislative provision. All that BGC has done is to act under that provision and nothing else.
I shall now answer the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). There has been a not insubstantial secondary benefit for BGC in the usefulness of being a partner in the licences. Everyone knows that when one has such an interest one sits on the operating committees, management committees, and technical committees of the respective oilfields in which one has an interest. One gains a great deal of knowledge through that about engineering, costings, and the commercial and financial aspects of developing the North Sea. All such information is useful for engineering, costing and commerce in BGC's primary role, which is to negotiate with the major oil companies on gas development and the purchase of gas.
Information is obtained from committees. Members of those committees get feedback for the general work task of the BGC's main function—the acquiring of gas and the negotiation of its development with major oil companies in the North Sea. Like the NCB, the BGC is a major influence in the North Sea which extends to its role as purchaser and developer of gas. It derives much useful information from its membership of the operating committee. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, North.
Conservative Members cannot possibly say that the costs of acquisition or the development of those minority interests have proved to be a burden on the taxpayer or the consumer. On the contrary, they have provided useful

revenue to the corporation. One should compare that with the right hon. Gentleman's crazy policy of imposing 100 per cent. increases in gas prices or the rapacious gas levy tax. That policy is portrayed as pushing back the frontiers of the State. They are all modest but useful minority holdings in four North Sea oilfields.

Mr. Michael Morris: If those interests are so useful to the BGC in liaising with oil companies, why is every oil company complaining bitterly about its dealings with the BGC?

Mr. Rowlands: One reason may be that the BGC is standing up for British gas consumers. Any increase in gas prices has been the direct result of the Secretary of State's policy, not that of the BGC. Moreover, there is no truth in what the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) says. I have heard of no disagreement between oil companies and British Gas as partners in North Sea oil development. It has been a fruitful relationship. It is about to be destroyed by Conservative Members for silly ideological purposes.
We should also bear in mind the background to the present policy. There is, for example, the debacle about forcing British Gas's arm about Wytch Farm being put out to tender. It has never been denied that the bids for the BGC Wytch Farm interests have fallen well below £200 million. The right hon. Gentleman should give a one-word assurance that there can be no suggestion of his forcing BGC to accept one of those tenders, thereby selling off the Wytch Farm interest at a price far below that of any independent valuation. If that happens, we shall know that the same will apply to all the other interests and the multiplicity of subsidiaries. The House has the right to know where the Government stand on that matter.
The House also has a right to know what will happen to those subsidiaries if the directions are passed. We have a right to scrutinise these sell-outs. Parliamentary procedures have scarcely given us that opportunity so far. The directions reflect the shabby disregard of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for parliamentary accountability. They were thought up during the recess and came into force immediately before the House returned after the recess. It is only the right hon. Gentleman's or his Department's incompetence that prevented us from debating the matter earlier. We were all ready to debate this before the Summer Recess. It is due to the incompetence of the right hon. Gentleman, who at the last minute withdrew the instrument—he shakes his head, so perhaps he will explain why it was withdrawn—thus avoiding the possibility of debate until now, many weeks later.
Even now, this is no more than an enabling measure. It does not tell us what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do with the subsidiaries. He can still sell them off, one by one or in combination. After Amersham International and the other privatisation scandals, we should not leave assets of this kind in the hands of people like the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman criticising the work of the Public Accounts Committee on the dispersal of public assets?

Mr. Rowlands: On the contrary, that report was close to being a major indictment of every act of privatisation undertaken by the Government. It found that every one of


their basic objectives had gone wrong, at considerable cost to the taxpayer and the nation. That was the evidence given.

Mr. Morris: It certainly was not.

Mr. Rowlands: It was certainly the case with aerospace. No doubt we shall have the opportunity to debate these wider issues in the future.
This is still just another enabling provision. We are being asked to approve the creation of all these proliferating subsidiaries. Are we to have four mini-mini-Britoils? If so, do the Government propose to dispose of a 51 per cent. shareholding in each of the four subsidiaries holding the assets? Is the reason for creating them that one or more will be sold off lock, stock and barrel with 100 per cent. disposal? What does this measure seek to do besides giving the Secretary of State power to do what he likes when he likes with the assets by breaking them up into these various subsidiaries?
If the Secretary of State plans to sell a majority shareholding in the subsidiaries or dispose of all of the assets in one or more of them, will there be the £1 golden share provision that he produced for Britoil to protect its integrity and to prevent it from falling into foreign hands? Will there be provisions to ensure that no subsidiary can be taken over by foreign interests? All of those questions are relevant because BGC's minority holdings in each of these oilfields are all subject to a pre-emptive right of purchase by its partners. In every case the majority partners are American and they will have the pre-emptive right to purchase if the assets are disposed of.
Are the subsidiaries designed to get around that preemptive right of the American oil companies to buy the BGC interests in those four areas? We asked about this in Committee, and we now ask again. Indeed, our concern was shared by Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). I hope that the Minister will now give us the answer that we did not receive when we discussed the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill. If a majority or the whole of any subsidiary is sold, what are the American oil company's rights? What advice has the right hon. Gentleman received on this? What will be the rights of the other partners in the oilfield to make a preemptive bid? The situation is exactly the same as that at Wytch Farm, but in this case it is not BP but American oil companies. Is this no more than an American right-to-buy provision in one form or another? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a clear and unequivocal response to that question.
I turn to another aspect of the subsidiaries. Subsidiaries A and F are to hold new participation agreements or rights. I think that they are new because, as I understand, there are no agreements. That is because BGC handed over 100 per cent. of its oil to BNOC. It seems that, yet again, BNOC's rights to that oil and those participation rights will be diluted, and BNOC will lose 49 per cent. of its control of the oil provided by BGC under the licences. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether that is correct.
Of equal importance—the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Bedford—there will be rights to gas in these fields. Fulmar and Hutton will have gas, and BGC has a specific duty in gathering and gaining the gas there. There is nothing in the directions to suggest that the Government will in any way ensure that BGC gets at least the rights to its own gas. Will there be provision for that?
This all shows how petty, mean and farcical the directions are. It is privatisation going mad. It is the product of an approach and a mentality of that section of the Conservative Party that at present is in the ascendancy. Its interest has always been in fiddling and juggling around with assets, setting up front companies and shadowy subsidiaries—whatever title or name one gives them. It does not produce anything, it does not make anything; it simply plays around with other people's assets. It is what Mr. Shelbourne and company are all about.
This direction will do nothing for the development of the North Sea. It will not produce an extra barrel of oil. It will, of course, produce much money for underwriters, brokers and the merchant banks. The Public Accounts Committee found out about the enormous underwriting fees paid for doing nothing except selling shares at much lower prices and selling companies at give-away prices.
In the 1970s, this type of Conservative Party played around with property. It was part of the property game, until that turned sour and it burnt its fingers. Now in the 1980s, the equivalent of that property game, apparently, is our national oil assets. We think that it is rotten and disgusting. We oppose it vehemently, and we shall restore these assets to the public sector when we return to power.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I was not quite sure whether we were having a further Second Reading debate, or whether this was a continuation of the Labour Party conference. Having listened to many discussions and debates on this subject, I have the distinct feeling that we should introduce a new Rowlands principle, that the significance of an issue bears an inverse relationship to the passions expressed. Although I noted the many questions, which I shall endeavour to answer, it seemed to me that the arguments were addressed to the nature of the direction that we are discussing.
We constantly come back to the peculiar point that the Opposition find it extremely difficult to understand that the Conservative Party, when in office, has as much right to try to put into practice its philosophical principles as has the Labour Party. [Ho N . MEMBERS: "Ridiculous."] That illustrates my point. The minute that a Conservative Member, at the Dispatch Box or elsewhere in the House, seeks to make a philosophical point, it is immediately regarded as ridiculous. Quite the reverse is true. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) rightly said, this Government are in the process of putting into practice Conservative principles, and we are excessively proud of doing so.
In an effort to help the cause of rational debate, I shall address myself to the particulars of the directions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made clear our policy on the matter. Frequent references have been made to it, beginning on 19 October 1981, when the Government made it clear that they intended to privatise BGC's offshore oil interests—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Moore: I have just begun. I expect the debate to continue until well into the night. I shall attempt to respond to all points raised, if I am given the opportunity to do so.
Our intention to privatise the offshore oil interests was debated on a number of occasions during the passage of


the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act. However, all hon. Members will welcome this further opportunity for debate. During the consideration of the Act, the Government made it clear that Parliament should have an opportunity, via the negative procedure, to debate our specific plans for disposal of BGC's offshore oil assets when these were formulated. Needless to say, I trust that the House will reject the Opposition's prayer.
Before we go any further, we should be quite clear what we are debating. The directions we are concerned with tonight deal only with preliminary work towards the disposal of BGC's offshore oil interests. They do not deal with the disposal itself. That will be initiated by a further statutory instrument, which will also be subject to the negative resolution procedure. There will, therefore, be a second opportunity for debate at some stage in the future.
I shall seek to answer all the detailed points raised about the proliferation of companies, but without seeking to belittle the present debate, I must say that the second debate will clearly be the more important of the two. It will be at that stage that the Government should be able to answer questions on such important issues as the disposal method to be adopted. I cannot answer such points today simply because they have not yet been settled.
It follows that I cannot accept the criticism against laying the directions in the recess—that substantive point was made earlier—which was put forward by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil when the directions were laid on 6 August, and which he repeated today. The directions are just not as important as he implies. The crucial statutory instrument is still to come.

Mr. Rowlands: Mr. Rowlandsrose

Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman can restrain his natural and legitimate impatience, I shall endeavour to cover the points that I think he wishes to raise.

Mr. Rowlands: If the crucial statutory instrument in relation to the disposal of BGC assets is the transfer of assets order, why have the Minister and his party refused to extend that procedure to the whole of the transfer of BNOC assets to Britoil, thereby ensuring that we do not have the opportunity to have a crucial debate on a crucial instrument?

Mr. Moore: I should not have given way. I shall show that the options are wider than the hon. Gentleman suggested. If I can continue, he may understand the point that I am endeavouring to make.
I certainly accept that in the case of the other statutory instrument the Government should not bring it into effect before the House has had an opportunity for debate. But I find it difficult to see how that argument could be extended to the much more modest directions with which we are currently concerned.
I should also point out that nothing irrevocable has yet occurred as a result of the directions. If the House decided tonight that the directions should be annulled, any of the preliminary steps already taken could easily be stopped. Parliament's right to annul the directions is, therefore, in no sense constrained.
Nor was the laying of the directions in the recess without precedent. Under the previous Administration, for example, well over 100 instruments were laid during the

recess each summer, most of them subject to the negative resolution procedure. Those included instruments on such subjects as price control, the amendment of planning permission regulations and the establishment of the circumstances in which mobility allowances would be paid. These would all seem to me to be issues of some importance.
More generally, on the question of precedent, I remind Opposition Members that when the Labour Government disposed of BP shares in 1977 and when Burmah's North Sea oil interests were acquired in 1976, there was no parliamentary procedure of any kind whatsoever. I find it odd, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should feel able to mount an argument that Parliament is being shortchanged by the present Government.

Mr. Dick Douglas: On the issue of Burmah, it does not lie in the mouths of private enterprise to defend that failure. It was a failure, and the Government had to take precipitate action to save the company. Conservative Members know that.

Mr. Moore: The hon. Member should address himself to my point. The Conservative Party is accused of taking insufficient cognisance of Parliament. I gave two examples of important issues which were not brought before Parliament at all. That is the issue at stake which was raised by the Labour Party, to which I sought to address myself. It is odd that Parliament should be thought to being short-changed by the Government.
Finally, before I leave the subject, may I say that, despite all those points, the Government made every effort to lay the direction before the recess? That is a point to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself. In the event, not as a matter of incompetence, it proved impossible to complete the legitimate consultations to which the Government committed themselves—although the Government made every effort to do so—with the British Gas Corporation under section 11 of the Act in the time between Royal Assent and the summer adjournment.
I hope that the House will find it helpful if I now attempt to explain in detail what the directions set out to do.
The disposal envisaged will consist of all BGC's interests in offshore oilfields which are either in production or under development. These fields are Beryl A and B, Montrose, Fulmar, Hutton and North-West Hutton. We do not currently envisage any of BGC's present interest in any of those areas being retained, either by BGC or the Government.
However, the Government have not yet decided how the disposal will be carried out. Nor has there even been any decision on timing, although I can say that we would hope to see the disposal completed in the lifetime of this Parliament. Our aim at this stage is merely to establish a basic framework within which all disposal options are retained.
The directions are complex because of the need for flexibility and I shall try to explain them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Throughout all the hours in Committee the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of State, Department of Energy, spoke not about the disposal of assets during the lifetime of the Parliament but about the disposal of assets when the market was favourable. Are we now to accept that there has been a transfer from the concept of a favourable market


to the lifetime of the Parliament? Although I disagree with the Bill, one can understand the disposal of assets on a favourable market, but this is a qualitatively different constraint.

Mr. Moore: I cannot accept that. The statement relating to timing must always take markets into account because they are a key factor in any sales decision. That has not changed at all.
The need for flexibility is why the directions are rather complex. Underlying the complexity, the main objective is simply to provide for the interests associated with each of the four fields—taking Beryl A and B and Hutton and North-West Hutton together—to be transferred to four new subsidiaries of the corporation. Those subsidiaries are, for the sake of illustration, referred to in the directions as subsidiaries B, C, D and E. All their shares would be held by a fifth subsidiary referred to as subsidiary A.
Once those transfers have been completed, a number of disposal options will be available. It would, for example, be possible to float all the interests in the form of subsidiary A. Subsidiary A could also be sold to an individual purchaser. Alternatively, subsidiaries B, C, D and E could be sold separately to different purchasers. The option of a direct sale of the interests themselves, rather than of companies holding the interests, would also remain.
There are advantages and disadvantages in each of the options, but the Government believe that it would be wrong to decide between them, or even to rule out any one option, before we are somewhat nearer the time of the disposal. The decision will therefore be taken nearer the time in the light of all relevant factors.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman said that he had had consultations with the British Gas Corporation. Could he name one person in the BGC, on the board, management or in the trade unions representing the work force, in favour of this series of options, all of which are designed to asset-strip one of the most successful pieces of public enterprise in the country?

Mr. Moore: That is ridiculous, especially as the hon. Gentleman is referring to consultations that were supposed to be private. If the hon. Gentleman would address himself to the problems, he would understand that the British Gas Corporation equity interests are in offshore oil companies, not the British Gas manufacturing process.
I recognise that there will be some disappointment in the House that I cannot, at this stage, say any more than this, but, as I have already explained, there will be a further opportunity for debate when the statutory instrument is made which will initiate the disposal itself. On present expectations, this instrument will take the form, not of a further direction to BGC requiring it to carry out the disposal, but an order, under section 11(5) of the Act, transferring the shares of the relevant subsidiaries to the Secretary of State before their disposal by him. Whether or not it does, in the event, take this form, there will definitely be some kind of statutory instrument subject to negative resolution which will provide an opportunity for debate. The Government would expect, at that point, to be able to say which of the disposal options was being proposed. It will be at that point as well that the Government should be able to give their views on a number of questions, such as whether it would be

appropriate for the articles of association of the new company or companies to include any provisions against undesirable changes in control.
I shall now relate some general comments, which attempt to answer many of the practical questions asked as to what actually appears in the directions.
The requirement for BGC to establish subsidiaries A, B, C, D and E is contained in clauses 2 and 4 of the directions. The provisions relating to the transfer of assets to these subsidiaries are contained in clauses 3 and 5.
The transfers will be carried out by means of schemes drawn up under section 10 of the Act. In order to end up with the position we are aiming for, two schemes will be required. The first will transfer all the interests to subsidiary A in return for the issue of shares by A to the corporation. The second will then transfer the interests relating to the individual fields from subsidiary A to subsidiaries B, C, D and E for the issue of shares by these subsidiaries to A.
I am sure the (louse will welcome the fact that the directions also provide for participation arrangements to be established by way of the schemes before the interests are disposed of. The interests are not, in recognition of BGC's position as a public utility, currently subject to participation, as the hon. Member for Methyr Tydfil pointed out, and I shall endeavour to answer his point. However, it will obviously be right to make them subject to participation before they are transferred to the private sector.
The procedure by which this will be achieved is rather complicated. Clause 3(2) of the directions first requires arrangements for 51 per cent. participation to be established between BGC and A.

Mr. Rowlands: Mr. Rowlandsrose—

Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman is interested in understanding what I am trying to explain, with care, to the House, and has more patience, he will gain more knowledge of a subject that he seems to be interested in.
A's obligations under these arrangements will then, by virtue of clause 5(1), be transferred to subsidiaries B, C, D and E. The corporation's corresponding rights will, by virtue of clause 7, be passed to a further new subsidiary, referred to as subsidiary F. The Government intend subsequently to use section 11(5) of the Act to transfer subsidiary F's shares to the Secretary of State with a view to vesting them in BNOC. The net effect will, therefore, be the establishment of participation arrangements between BNOC anc the four new companies holding the interests. These arrangements will then continue to apply after the disposal regardless of the disposal route adopted.
I hope that the House will welcome these proposals and will also recognise that setting the level of participation at 51 per cent. strikes a fair balance between the interests of the Government's participation policy and the interests of the future owners of the assets. That 51 per cent. is the normal level of participation.
Since the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil made this point, let me remind him that going for 100 per cent. would only have brought an extra 0.4 per cent. of current North Sea oil production within British National Oil Corporation's control. That is not a significant figure in terms of BNOC's total access to oil. The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about associated gas. The relevant associated gas of the fields in question is 0.25 per cent. of


gas reserves, so again we are speaking of a minimal amount. The British Gas Corporation would still have the opportunity of purchasing that gas in the normal market. The Government will make a summary of the participation arrangements available to Parliament as soon as they have been finalised.
On timing, the directions require BGC to establish all the new subsidiaries and submit the schemes to the Secretary of State by the end of November. Thereafter, the Secretary of State will be able, by virtue of section 10(5) of the Act, to approve the schemes either without modification or—

Mr. J. Grimond: Does the Government intend that there should be any participation by either the employees of the British Gas Corporation or by the public at large when these subsidiaries are sold off?

Mr. Moore: I tried to say that, on the option for ultimate disposal, the Government had not yet determined the character of the total disposal. If the Government sought at that point to float off a corporation, clearly there would be an opportunity for the public to purchase shares.

Mr. Peter Rost: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the original offer to British Gas could still be open—in other words, that the oil interests would be hived off to a separate company with British Gas being given the opportunity to retain some form of participation?

Mr. Moore: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to keep to the direction of the debate. I made it clear to the House that the Government are keeping all their options open about the ultimate disposal. My hon. Friend will have another opportunity to make his point on the determination of the Government's option.
To continue, after the end of November, the Secretary of State will be able, by virtue of section 10(5) of the Act, to approve the schemes either without modifications or with such modifications as, after consultation with the Gas Corporation, he thinks fit.
Clause 9 of the directions deals with two other points that I should mention. First, it requires BGC to engage an independent petroleum consultant to evaluate the interests and to report by the end of next February. Such an independent valuation will be needed for the disposal, whatever disposal route is adopted.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: How independent will this "independent consultant" be?

Mr. Moore: He will be entirely independent. He will be reporting to the BGC, but the corporation will not be under any financial obligation as a consequence.
Secondly, it requires BGC to compile, or have compiled, such information about the activities of subsidiaries A, B, C and D and E in order to facilitate their disposal. It also calls, in particular, for an accountant's report on the interests. Such a report will be needed in the event of a flotation of subsidiary A. Its compilation will, therefore, enable the Government to keep this option open.
I hope that this somewhat detailed description which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil clearly wanted will serve to clarify any doubts that hon. Members may have had as to the way in which the directions we are debating are intended to operate. I am well aware that there are

many further questions, which I shall try to answer at the end of the debate. Many other hon. Members are seeking to make a contribution.
I hope that the detail that I have gone into has not obscured the merits of the policy underlying the directions. For too long, successive Governments have failed to face up to the crucial question of where the boundary between the public sector and the private sector should be drawn. This Government have not avoided that challenge. We have faced up to it, and we are of the firm opinion that industrial activities are best performed by private enterprise unless there is a positive and overwhelming case for their remaining under State ownership. Private enterprise has been the driving force behind the successful development of North Sea oil. There, therefore, seems to me to be little argument for a public utility, whose main business is the supply of gas, to retain a minor equity stake in North Sea oil. It is far better that this should be transferred to the private sector where it will be subject to the proper pressures and disciplines of the market.
I commend the directions to the House and invite right hon. and hon. Members to reject the Opposition prayer.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The Minister tried valiantly to present a case for the directions. I offer him no disrespect when I say that the debate should have been opened by the Minister of State who, coming from a Scottish constituency, knows a lot about this issue.

Mr. John Moore: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that within the Department I am responsible for the activities of the British Gas Corporation.—[Interruption.] Opposition Members who keep muttering from a sedentary position about my absence will also be aware that I was leading on a coal measure at the same time. Therefore, my absence from Committee in no way deprived me of an interest in decision making.

Mr. Douglas: That is where the Minister gets himself into some difficulty. We are dealing not with the gas activities of BGC but with its oil activities. That is our concern.
The Minister based part of his case on the great foundation of a Conservative philosophy which was last enunciated in all its majesty by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech on 3 July to the Conservative Political Centre, when among other things he said:
Yet this first Parliament has seen firm foundations laid in economic and social policy on which we can build during the rest of the decade".
As I understand them, those foundations seek to divide the nation on the basis of a doctrinaire policy. It is not a question of whether the Conservative Party philosophy, as in the past, believes in a mixed economy in which the public and private sectors can play their parts. We now have a doctrinaire Conservative policy that despises the public sector when it fails—

Sir Frederick Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in this House a considerable number of years and have attended many debates on statutory instruments. Such instruments are drawn very closely, and in this one I can find no statement whatever about the general economy. It merely deals with the British Gas Corporation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Chair will decide whether or not an hon. Member is in order. The hon. Gentleman is quite in order.

Mr. Douglas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was evident from the Minister's remarks that he was basing his case on this philosophy.
Conservatives despise public enterprise when it fails and absolutely hate it with a great passion when it is successful. The BGC is internationally one of the most successful enterprises of its nature and is recognised as such.
We know that for more than 50 years this enterprise has been engaged in offshore and onshore exploration for oil and gas. Its main objective, which has been endorsed by Governments of all political colours, is to gain by whatever means possible the maximum amount of knowledge on both reserves and costs of production of reserves of onshore and offshore gas in the United Kingdom. That is a noble objective. It protects not only the corporation, but the consumer. That is its role. I have argued before that the Government should assess the offshore oil and gas reserves and the costs of production. On that basis, a Government can form their taxation policy and can gain information by which to control the large multinationals.
The Minister talks of consultation, but I challenge him and his colleagues to name any partner in the BGC who has objected to its activities. I do not say that I am particularly well informed, because I do not have the resources that are available to the Minister. Oppositions do not have such facilities. However, not one of the British Gas Corporation's partners has objected to its activities. That is a statement of fact. I do not agree that participation in the fields is minuscule. In several fields participation is substantial and, one way or another, the corporation has control over fairly substantial reserves.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has raised an interesting point about the state of the oil market. The Government are falling over themselves to get ready for a pre-election give-away. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) knows a lot about such matters and will be aware, as other hon. Members will be, that there is great uncertainty in the international oil market. It is by no means certain what will happen at the next OPEC meeting in December. The Government may be trying to press on in order to avoid that. However, we must bear in mind what is happening in the oil market. In the short term, the market is steady, but we cannot be sure that that state of affairs will continue. The key is Saudi Arabia, but I shall not elaborate that point now. For doctrinaire reasons, the Government have pushed this policy forward. There is no evidence that the corporation's partners or the corporation itself want to take such a step.
What is the position of the independent petroleum consultant? Will the House be told the name, given that November is not far away? Surely the Minister can tell us that. Is it Degoyler and McNaughton or someone similar? Will the report be available to the House for assessment? Will there be pro forma balance sheets for the holding company and all the subsidiaries? Will the House be able to make an assessment? We know how the Public Accounts Committee tackled the issue of Amersham International and other investigations. In Committee, we said that we should consider the method of sale. Tender options could be allowed and in that way we would be able to gauge the price. Such things are important in assessing whether the nation gets value for money in the market place.
I vehemently disagree with the chairman of Britoil, Mr. Philip Shelbourne, who is a knowledgeable man. The nation puts a value that is higher than that of the market place on such assets. They have an intrinsic value for the nation, although Conservative Members probably will not understand that. The most important feature of a Government's policy is the securing of an energy supply. To do that, it is essential that there should be a substantial public corporation in the mix of public and private enterprise in the North Sea to advise the Minister about what is going on.
I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) about technology. I have an excellent document which comes from Shell. It is called "The North Sea: a Springboard for British Industry". The Minister for Industry and Informaton Technology wrote the preface. It said:
Industrial enterprise and the imaginative exploitation of new technologies are the prime creators of the wealth and jobs. I commend this Shell UK report as a convincing demonstration of the innovative strength and capability of British industry in its impressive response to the challenging demands of the North Sea.
Is there anything in that or any other document to suggest that public enterprise has not played its part? Shell claims that 75 per cent. of the goods that it uses in the North Sea come from British industry. There is nothing to suggest that Shell or other companies would have used Britisht goods if we had not created—the Conservative Government were partly responsible—the Offshore Supplies Office. That was public enterprise.
When we see the use of tension-legged platforms by British Gas in part of the Hutton field, is there anything to suggest that British Gas held back that technological development? The only people who want to downgrade public enterprise are the Tories. They do it for narrow doctrinaire reasons which are not for the good of the country. I do not support the directions.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) referred to the Government waiting for a give-away opportunity. The Government are not pursuing that target; they intend to go for a fair price later. That will be subject to a separate instrument. The hon. Member for Dunfermline is not a member of a party that thought about fair compensation for the public. In June 1977, when BP shares were allocated by the Labour Government, 66 million shares were offered at £8·45 a share at the behest of the IMF. We had no opportunity to debate that issue. The Minister gave the House an opportunity to discuss this subject at a preliminary stage, and we are discussing it again tonight.
How did the Labour Party look after the shareholders of other companies? The Burmah Oil Company had to sacrifice its BP stock in 1975. I shall read from a report in The Times of 10 May 1980. Labour Members might be wise to listen. The report states:
The Government intervened, and, at its direction the Bank
—that is the Bank of England—
became an outright purchaser of BP stock…As a result of the 1975 intervention the Government helped itself to Burmah's major asset at an effectively all-time 'low'.
We learnt tonight that the Labour Party could not care less about shareholders. It works on knock-down prices, whereas the market price should be the main determinant.
The Minister was right to emphasise that either the establishment of the boundaries between the public and private sectors or the establishment of the correct role for the State to play is crucial for a modern industrial State. I fully accept that view.
The benefits from the North Sea are a product of private enterprise. The private sector generates the lion's share of the oil and accounts for the greater part of the taxes paid into the Inland Revenue. BGC is primarily a public utility. It should be confined to the distribution and sale of gas and the search for gas on the Continental Shelf and elsewhere. A competitive industrial society cannot tolerate the generation of its energy wholly within the public sector. State-produced coal and electricity must be balanced by an expanding private sector in oil and gas.
I fully agree with the principles outlined in the direction. My only reservations are on the complicated procedures involved. The legislature is apparently reluctant to do anything straightforward and simple. Acts and statutory instruments must be drafted in abstruse terms, and the most sophisticated device is used to accomplish those ends.
The procedural complications comprise the establishment of a scheme under section 10 of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 to transfer interests in BGC to subsidiaries designated as A, B, C, D and E while retaining through A separate creation participation rights. At least six steps are envisaged. The first is that BGC and Gas Council (Exploration) Limited will transfer rights and liabilities of scheduled oilfields to subsidiary A. That is in paragraphs 2 and 3. The second step is that subsidiary A transfers the assets and obligations of the part assigned to subsidiaries B, C, D and E. That is in paragraphs 4 and 5. The third step is the valuation by independent petroleum consultants and the determination of other disposal preliminaries. That is set out in paragraph 9.
The fourth step involves participation rights being reserved to company F, which is established for the acquisition and disposal of petroleum. That is in paragraphs 3(2) and 6 and 7.
The fifth step is the vesting of all or any of the subsidiaries in the Secretary of State for disposal. They comprise, first, groups A, B, C, D and E and, secondly, company F. Finally, there will be an order by the Secretary of State under a separate statutory instrument disposing of the groups collectively or separately as he may desire. Also, after vesting company F in himself, he will transfer it to BNOC. That all happens under the authority of section 11(5) of the 1982 Act.
I have gone through the process carefully to show the complicated steps that must be taken. The gentlemen in the Civil Service have worked them out carefully and meticulously doubtless to fit in with all possibilities and with maximum flexibility. But the complications could have been simply avoided. All the assets could have been sold to Britoil, which already has participating arrangements with BNOC and can be relied on because of the 49 per cent. Government interest in the privatised company. That is the most satisfactory alternative.
There is another simple solution which would obviate the complications. An option to the existing partners of the BGC in the relevant field could be made available. Looking at the production licences we find that the companies involved are Amoco, Amerada and Texas East, all of which are American. There are four sets of production licences, and Mobil is involved in three of them.
As well as the 1975 Act we have a considerable amount of other legislation. There are also the participation rights which involve 51 per cent. of the oil. I see no difficulty in allowing a participating company to take over the share interest in any of these fields. The companies are obligated to BNOC by the fact that they must concede 51 per cent. of the oil. They are covered by Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments; thus they are controlled by the State. There is no reason for us to fear complications.
The Minister said that the interests of the British Gas Corporation should be subject to participation before they are transferred from the public to the private sector. That is not necessarily the case, because there could be a transfer of all the interests to one new private enterprise company and participation agreements negotiated later. In the Petroleum 'and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975, there is only one reference to participation agreements, in section 2(e), as being part of the function of the BNOC. Already 68 such agreements have been negotiated "voluntarily" and there is no reason to believe that on this occasion the buyers would not agree to follow the lead established by others or to ensure that participation became a condition of the sale. That would negate paragraphs 3(2), 6 and 7 of the regulations.
By following the course that I have suggested, much of the complication could be eliminated by transferring the assets to BNOC—in which the public have a 51 per cent. interest—or to the present licensees or to private enterprise. The deal could be made subject to conditions and the companies could voluntarily agree to enter into a participation arrangement.
I support the Minister's proposal that the interests should be returned to private enterprise, where they will be well looked after and where they can prosper. However, I am trying to identify the holding of subsidiaries B, C, D


and E. Which assets will be transferred to company B as distinct from company C? The schedule of assets refers to Montrose, Beryl A and B, North-West Hutton and to Fulmar. Do I assume that each field will be transferred to each of the four companies?

Mr. Rowlands: In paragraph 5 of the direction, subparagraph (b) refers to paragraph 2, subparagraph (c) refers to paragraph 3 and so on. It is specified clearly.

Mr. Skeet: It is not specified clearly. Paragraph 5(1)(a) states that
the transfer between Subsidiary A and Subsidiary B of the property, rights and liabilities referred to in Clause 3(1) and (2) above in so far as they relate to, or are comprised in so much of the undertaking of Subsidiary A as relates to, the seaward area specified in paragraph 1 of the Schedule to these directions.

Mr. Rowlands: The schedule denotes them as blocks 27/17 and 22/18.

Mr. Skeet: The schedule does not say that. Subsidiaries A, B, C, and D are dealt with in the same terms. The fields cannot he shared among the companies. On first examination of the direction, I believed that that would be the likely consequence, but the document does not tell us clearly what will happen. The Minister will have an opportunity either now or later to tell me what will happen.
I turn now to another important issue. The Minister rightly indicated the time limit for disposal which is referred to in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the direction. Timing will be more difficult. There is the precedent of Wytch Farm, under Order in Council 1459 in 1981. It would not be in order to refer to that in too much detail tonight but that order came into operation on 13 October 1981. Today is 26 October 1982. Therefore, a year has elapsed since the order was made. There has been a considerable delay in the disposal of that field—more than a year. Many fields are involved in the direction before the House. Are we to have four times that amount of time to dispose of these assets?
The Minister clearly articulated that he hopes to complete the disposal in the life of this Parliament. I wish him well and it is right to have that aim ahead of him. He has arranged in the direction to establish, all the new subsidiaries by 30 November 1982. He will have the report from the independent petroleum consultant by 28 February 1983. We have been told tonight that there will be a further instrument, possibly under section 11(5) of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982, which will give rise to a debate in the House. I assume that it will not be possible to get rid of these properties to prospective buyers until July 1983, by which time the general election will be close. Anything can happen in those circumstances.
I know nothing about the prospect for a general election or when one is likely to come. However, the Government are perfectly right to pursue this policy, but if they had adopted a simpler method we could have disposed of all of these oilfields at a much earlier date.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) did not mention the selection of fields. I was concerned about Beryl A and B and Hutton. The Minister said that there is natural gas associated with them in each case of about 0.1 trillion cubic feet, but that is only a tiny part of the total production of British Gas. If only it could be arranged on this occasion that the conditions of sale could reserve to British gas the right of access to the gas that is available.
The definition of "petroleum" is dealt with in section 16 of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 in reference to participation oil under paragraph 3(2). Methane is exempted, but I suggest that a modification should be made in the interests of industry and that additionally propane, butane and ethane should be exempted. That would be helpful to the petrochemical industry. This is a matter of definition, but it is by correct definition that one achieves greater justice.
Other hon. Members wish to speak, but there are one or two other matters that I should like briefly to cover. The oil lifted by the British Gas Corporation in 1981 amounted to 17,000 barrels a day, which is a small proportion of the production from the North Sea. Compared with the production in the Forties field, it is minute. It is estimated that British Gas Corporation production by 1985 could be of the order of 66,000 barrels a day. I emphasise that this oil will not be lost. It will be marketed. At present, of course, there is a world surplus.
What about British Gas Corporation oil sales? In 1980–81, sales of oil were made, as obligated, to the British National Oil Corporation and netted about £120 million. This was only 3 per cent. of the British Gas Corporation's turnover. It is minute. Hon. Members must get the matter in proportion.

Mr. Palmer: If the amount is so minute, why should the House be put to all this trouble?

Mr. Skeet: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. If it is minute, the BNOC and the country 'will not be injured. It is a matter of operating these companies successfully. In trading and manufacturing interests, private enterprise does best. One has only to look at British Leyland, the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board to begin to understand the problems of State corporations. On the other hand, private enterprise possesses not merely expertise but the essential techniques.
I wish to refer also to the production licences. One would naturally conclude that when the British Gas Corporation ceases to be associated with oil fields there will be little interest left. However, it has over 28 petroleum production licences left.
Although the Minister rightly has not dealt with figures, it is open to hon. Members to mention them. The Minister mentioned the possibility ultimately of securing a fair price, which I fully endorse. A fair price is a market price determined and established by the market. The figures, which include Wytch Farm, produced by Wood Mackenzie on 30 July 1981, at $35 a barrel work out: at £550 million. At $38 a barrel, well above the current market price, it works out at £900 million. On the other hand, the analysts, Phillips and Drew, on 12 November 1981, put the value of the BGC interest in the Wytch Farrn at £195 million, and the value of its interests in West Hutton at £191 million, and in Beryl at £109 million. Hutton, Montrose and Fulmar are relatively smaller, but the total is £650 million. The figure, if Wytch Farm is deducted, comes to £455 million.
What the Minister has stated tonight is sound practice. The Labour Party does not, of course, agree. Opposition Members do not believe in market prices. They believe in sequestrating assets as instanced by their calling upon the Bank of England o act over the shareholding of the


Burmah Oil Company in British Petroleum. I accept all the provisions of paragraph 9. They will be most satisfactory in practice.
Opposition Members should read the regulations, however complicated. I deplore the nature of the structure adopted, but it will secure ultimately the sale of this property which should be reserved to private enterprise. It will be taken out of the control of the State which should never have been in control in the first place.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) lost me in the mass of detail that he gave. He made an explosive speech, but he succeeded in convincing me that it was not necessary to have the legislation at all because the subject of it is so minuscule. It is a small thing, he said. Therefore, I should have thought that the House of Commons could be occupied with much more important matters.
I shall take up the justification that the Under-Secretary of State gave for the direction. It is based on the main Act. As the House will know, I take an interest in energy matters, but I did not play a part in the discussions on the main Act.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman was lucky.

Mr. Palmer: Yes.
Therefore, I come fresh to the direction. The Under-Secretary defended it on the grounds of Conservative philosophical principles. I always understood that the essence of Conservativism was pragmatism and that if something worked well one left it alone. However, the Under-Secretary of State says "No". This has to be done because it is part of Conservative philosophy, some might say Conservative doctrine. It is true that the Conservatives have a majority in the House and not only have the right to apply their policy but, more to the point, the power to apply it. However, does not the hon. Gentleman see that another different principle might unite the two sides of the House? That is continuity in national energy policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that possibility. There is nothing so upsetting to great industries as to have one policy pursued by one party when it is in power and then the diametrically opposite policy pursued by the other party when it is in power.
Therefore, there is a counter-argument for continuity unless the view taken by Conservative Members is that there was a revolution in matters of legislation under the several Labour Governments, so now it is their duty to carry through a counter revolution. If so, it does not assist the general stability of industry or the morale of the staff involved.
The measure takes away from the British Gas Corporation its profitable oil interests. Also, it is another foray into the guerrilla war that the Secretary of State wages against the BGC, particularly against its able chairman, Sir Denis Rooke.
The Government dislike—the Under-Secretary of State seemed to admit it—all nationalised industries but reserve their greatest hatred for the successful ones, particularly those whose leaders dare to criticise the policies of the Government and the Secretary of State for Energy. If it were not for Sir Denis Rooke's great ability,

administrative gifts and the loyalty that he excites in his staff, he would have long gone the way of Mr. Glyn England, former chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.
A successful nationalised industry upsets the cherished doctrine of the Secretary of State, who is one of the most extreme free enterprisers in the Government, and of those who think like him. As the hon. Gentleman admitted, the doctrine is that national ownership is bad and private ownership is good. That crude doctrine undercuts all the assumptions that we make about a mixed economy in this country. It is the business of Ministers to tell us whether they still believe in the mixed economy. That is a fair question to which the House deserves an answer.
The purpose of the direction and the parent Act is to do away with an alleged national monopoly. The hon. Member for Bedford talked about returning assets to private enterprise. But they were created by public enterprise. There can be no question of returning them. In any case, it was not the Labour Party that nationalised the gas industry. The Labour Party's legislation of 1948 regionalised the gas industry, but it was the Conservative Party that nationalised it by setting up the British Gas Corporation. Powers that the corporation is apparently acting criminally by using were granted by a Conservative Government. I served on the Standing Committee of the 1970s Bill. As I say, the powers that are now so criticised by Ministers were given by a Conservative Government and were defended eloquently then as being in the national interest. The present Conservative Government are very different, I am afraid, from those that we knew in days gone by. The national interest has lost by the change.
I have technical interests. I am an engineer but no geologist. One does not have to be a geologist to know that oil and gas are frequently found together. We should ignore the argument about whether an organisation is nationalised or private. These organisations are an entity in themselves. What sense does it make to insist on one enterprise—BGC—although it works with private oil partners looking only for gas? What reason can be given for it? We will only be told that it is a public utility and must be so confined.
It is simply ideology flying in the face of nature. In the case of Wytch Farm, the Secretary of State has forced the corporation to sell its stake in the largest land oilfield in the United Kingdom. I understand that the BGC has developed that field beneficially and has received an award for environmental protection. I wonder whether the oil companies would have exercised the same interest in the natural environment. I strongly doubt it.
Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Bedford said that the BGC should not be in the oil business. Why not? We have been given no logical reason for that opinion. Who said so? Only the Secretary of State for Energy and the Government. Life itself does not say so.
The BGC is in the oil business and it is in a good position to continue profitably.
The entire measure, including the principal Act, is a triumph of subjective prejudice over objective judgment.
I turn now to the independent consultants. Just how independent are they to be? If the nation's assets are to be sold off in this slipshod and reckless way, it should be the Government's business to obtain the maximum price, not merely to try to achieve a price that has been established by so-called objective consultants. Ministers should


occasionally try to remember that they are the Government of a great nation. They should take such decisions themselves and not farm them out to private consultants.

Mr. Michael Morris: It is usually a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), but he has been philosophising about the principles of the Conservative Party. It may surprise him to learn, after many years in the House, that the Conservative Party believes in private ownership as a fundamental part of democracy. That principle comes first. The State exists only as a provider of last resort.
I know of no evidence to suggest that the private sector, either in the oil or the gas industry, has shown any less regard for the environment than nationalised industries. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, I am sure that the House will listen. I hope that he will not make generalised statements that seem to be without foundation.
I wish to cover three points. The first concerns the timing and nature of the direction, which is the essence of our debate today. The second concerns the extraordinary outburst from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and his gross misrepresentation of the Public Accounts Committee report, to which I shall refer in detail in a moment. The third concerns BGC's relationship with the oil companies.
With regard to the nature and timing of the direction, the Minister correctly pointed out that this is a very preliminary stage in our proceedings. The House has the right to reject the direction today. If it does so, the proposals will have to be taken back. But we are not dealing with the details of the disposals. That is for another occasion. We shall rightly debate them when they are introduced, but that occasion is not tonight. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's outburst at the beginning might be appropriate to another debate, but it was not appropriate today. One must also reflect that he must have made it somewhat with tongue in cheek as section 12 of the Labour Government's Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act made provision for the possible transfer of oil assets of the British Gas Corporation to BNOC. I do not know what was in the mind of the Labour Government and it is true that they did not put those proposals into effect. Nevertheless, the provisions were made, so somebody in the Labour Party at some time must have considered the disposal of BGC's oil interests, but the Opposition never refer to that.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: A rip-off.

Mr. Morris: I do not know whether the Labour Government were considering a rip-off, but those provisions were laid down in their legislation. Labour Members should have come clean and told us what the Labour Party had in mind with those provisions.
I am surprised that praise was not offered to the Minister for getting on with the process of disposing of these assets. If one criticism is regularly made from both sides of the House, it is that the Governments of both parties fail to implement the policies that they have laid down sufficiently quickly. The Government seem to be getting on with the job and I wish them good luck. I look forward to taking part in a fuller debate when the time comes.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil referred to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I use the words

advisedly when I say that in my view his remarks were a gross misrepresentation of the work that we did. I refer to the Tenth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1981–82, entitled "Department of Industry Sale of shares in British Aerospace; Sales of Government Shareholdings in other publicly owned Companies and in British Petroleum Ltd. ; Postponement of payments", dated 31 March 1932.
The hon. Gentleman's first criticism was of the nature of the underwriters. In the first sale of public assets, which related to BP, in 1977 and 1979, the underwriters were the Bank of England. Who owns the Bank of England? It is a nationalised industry. It was therefore less than fair to suggest that all the underwriting was done by the private sector.

Mr. Rowlands: As the hon. Gentleman is quoting the Public Accounts Committee report, will he read out paragraph 14, which says:
we doubt whether in these circumstances it was necessary to underwrite the issue at a cost of £2·6 million in order to guarantee receipt of the proceeds—
and the price, which the Committee, of which the hon. Member is a member, felt had been set too cautiously. That is an indictment.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman has missed out on paragraph 14, as I have already moved to paragraph 21. I shall come to the nub of what the hon. Gentleman was saying, which concerns Amersham International. That is in paragraph 23, and it will give me great pleasure to read out that paragraph.
We observe that in the Debate on Amersham International in the House of Commons on 16 March 1982 the Under-Secretary of State for Energy explained that in selling the shares of that company the Government had had four objectives.
That was "four objectives", not one.
The first had been to preserve the firm as an independent British company ;
That is a laudable objective.
the second to maintain the staff's commitment to the company;
I should have thought that that would have found favour with the House.
the third to ensure the widest possible spread of share ownership; and the fourth to achieve a good return for the Exchequer. We note that careful attention was given to offering the shares on a tender "Jasis; and that the fixed price method was preferred to ensure that small investors had a fair opportunity. We also note that the Government's advisers, the company's advisers and the stockbroker to the issue had considered that the offer price of 142p was the highest price at which the issue could have been successfully underwritten and subscribed; although we observe from the C&amp;AG's Memorandum that this price was near to the mid-point of the range of possible prices suggested by the Department of Energy s independent adviser W. Greenwell and Co.
The conclusions of the Committee were unanimous and on an all-party basis. They were:
As we have already observed, this is a field in which it is easy to form a view with the benefit of hindsight.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) are good at hindsight. However, they were pretty poor at foresight when they were in Government and they would not be any better if they were back in Government.
Further on in the conclusions to paragraph 23 there is the nub of what the Committee had to say:
In doing so we recognise that maximising the return to the Exchequer is not the only policy which the Government may wish to pursue … But we are concerned that the maximum return should be obtained consistent with those policies.


That is not what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said. He gave a gross misrepresentation of what happened, and I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman read out the section that is appropriate to what I have been saying? For example, will he read out paragraph 26, which says:
we have some doubts whether the subsequent sales achieved the full measure of benefit which should have accrued to the Exchequer for the publicly owned shares which were being sold.
Earlier, in paragraph 6, the Committee had said that the sum total of the sale of British Aerospace
was a cash deficit of £12 million for the Exchequer.
In paragraph 28, the report says:
We therefore trust that the adoption for sale of publicly owned shares of this aspect of normal City practice will be very carefully re-examined.
29. A further point which should be re-examined is the extent to which the policy of securing a wide ownership of shares in former publicly owned companies is actually achieved.
This was Amersham International and British Aerospace. The former was sold at 142p. a share, and the shares now sell at 242p. each. That is the degree of loss to the nation as a result of the hon. Gentleman's policy.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman's protestations would carry more weight if he had put them into his speech at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Rowlands: I did.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman had to send for the document, when he saw that I had one. He knew when he stood up that he was twisting the report.
I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will always re-examine every piece of Government work done in the House. I have stood up and criticised my Front Bench for not examining some of the areas we should be examining.

Mr. Tim Renton: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the price of Amersham International was announced, many newspaper commentators said that they thought the price had been pitched too high? Evidently, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) did not. I hope that he applied for a great many of the shares. Many financial experts said that they thought the price was too high. It was only in subsequent days that enthusiasm for the shares increased. When the price was announced the general view was that it had been pitched too high.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which adds to my ammunition.
I shall leave Amersham International and the Public Accounts Committee—[Interruption.] I am happy to debate the Public Accounts Committee at great length. I wish to ask the Minister a question. The Opposition have made great play of the point that British Gas should not be ordered to dispose of its interests because of the great role that it plays in the development of the North Sea, especially in the fields under discussion. Have the companies involved in the fields—Beryl A and B, Hutton North-West, Hutton Montrose and Fulmar, which is Mobil, Conoco, Amoco and Shell—all been hammering on the door of the Department of Energy demanding that British Gas remain a major shareholder? I want to know the answer. Have there been petitions from the workers in the private sector oil companies saying that they want British Gas to remain a firm member of their consortium? Have there been letters to the Department of Energy?

These are important questions. Obviously, Labour Members feel that there have been. Perhaps the trade unions have been petitioning on the matter. When it was reported widely in the newspapers during the recess, did right hon. and hon. Members receive extensive correspondence from their consituents and trade unions? I should like to hear from some hon. Member who has had correspondence on this absolutely burning key issue. The silence on the Opposition Benches suggests that there will not be a positive answer. That speaks for itself.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I cannot promise the same degree of heat that was generated by the last observation of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). Nevertheless, when the Minister spoke to the direction he reminded me of the usual Government stratagem of avoiding giving too much away. The hon. Gentleman said that the direction was not the important statutory instrument, and that there would be another more important one later that could be discussed on its merits.
The Minister said that it was too early to discuss certain matters. In a few months negotiations will be in progress and nothing can be said. We shall find very quickly that it is too late and nothing much can be said to stop the privatisation arrangements that the Government are putting forward.
An argument for the disposal of BGC interests, apart from the ideological one of extending the frontiers of private industry, must be the value that will come to the Exchequer. They are public assets and if they are to be disposed of it must be for the maximum value so that the money is available for other purposes.
The most recent issue of Business Scotland contained an analysis of the disposal of State assets. It said that in the case of the two disposals in 1979—British Petroleum and ICL—the value of the shares has since gone down by 21 per cent. and 31 per cent. That means that the State made more than a profit on the deal. From then on, however, the State seems to have been unable to estimate the value of the interests of which it has disposed. The profit made by those who purchased shares in Ferranti, which was sold in July 1980, was 223 per cent. British Aerospace shares are up 57 per cent. Gleneagles Hotels was a private sale, so we do not know the cost, but we know that Cable and Wireless, since being disposed of in June 1981, has gone up by 94 per cent. There is no figure for the National Freight Corporation, which was a management buy-out, but in the case of Amersham International, which was disposed of in February of this year, the value of the shares has gone up by 75 per cent.
It appears, therefore, that the Government have been unable to measure the value of the assets of which they dispose. That, in my view, should be a cause for concern, particularly as the oil market is extremely variable at present, and no one can foresee with any certainty what the price range is likely to be.
The Minister and other hon. Members referred to the fields that are to be taken over. It is likely that the value which will be achieved by sale by any of the methods suggested by the Government in this instrument will be well under the value of the fields, were they put on the market at maximum value. We see that in the case of Wytch Farm. I know that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) produced figures from Phillips and Drew to show that the value of that asset was 195 million, whereas


other valuations range up to £450 million. Much money is involved, and the disparity between the two valuations again gives cause for concern.
It has been said—it is not an original phrase—that some of the Government's disposals have been more like privatisation than privatisation, because the value has not come back to the Exchequer in the way that it should have done.
I wish to put to the Minister one or two questions about the likely impact of this policy on the British Gas Corporation. The corporation has been exploring and developing for about 30 years—certainly since the early 1950s—and it has been fairly successful. Some of its stakes in the oilfields are not minuscule. Its stakes in Fulmar are minuscule, but in Beryl A and B they are 10 per cent., Hutton 10·31 per cent., North-West Hutton 25·77 per cent., and Montrose 30·77 per cent. Many of those fields are fairly small, compared with the monster fields that were discovered earlier, but they are not to be sneezed at in the current pattern of oil development.
Has the Minister taken on board the problems that may arise for British Gas because of the removal of its offshore oil interests? The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) said that oil, gas and condensate go together. To some extent one knows in advance what one is likely to find when one bores for oil, but one is never sure what one will merge with. Frequently, oil and gas are close to each other and have to be developed as a whole.
There is and will be a shortage of gas. It is clear that unless more gas is discovered, the United Kingdom will have to import. There is concern about whether the North Sea can provide the gas that is required. In those circumstances it is vital to encourage BGC to do as much exploration as possible.
If BGC is to lose its oil interests, does that include the methane which exists in the fields? Both in Beryl and North-West Hutton considerable gas deposits have been located. Will that not affect BGC in its future exploration and the difficulty of finding partners? Does the Minister intend BGC to be involved in exploration? If the resources discovered as a result of exploration are to be removed from the corporation, much of the incentive for BGC to continue its exploration work will disappear. That is particularly true if the methane found in Beryl and North-West Hutton were to move into private ownership only to be repurchased by BGC for its own needs.
If BGC is to be allowed an exploration and development role, is it not beneficial that it should be allowed to continue its developments, especially in relation to Hutton, where it has the advantage of the use and development of deep water technology? Much of the gas on which BGC will rely in future may come from deep water. Therefore, the practical experience gained from the Hutton development is particularly important.
I do not want to disregard the importance of BGC. For example, the Morecambe gas field is providing considerable work for the Scottish platform industry, and that is to be welcomed. It also has a good reputation in the purchase of English and Scottish goods. If it is to he deprived of a development role in future, part of the tied market coming from the oil fields will disappear.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Wytch Farm, which is close to but not in my constituency, has been mentioned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two advantages of the sale of that public asset would be, firstly,

that such a site would have to adapt—in the first place it would probably have to grow and subsequently contract—while a privately run business is much more likely to be able to adapt to such changes? Secondly, the taxes that accrue to the Exchequer from a viable business are likely to be larger, which is an advantage to the taxpayer.

Mr. Wilson: First, the hon. Gentleman should accept BGC's constructive role in developing Wytch Farm. Regardless of one's political views, it has done a good job in that regard. Secondly, if the oil in Wytch Farm were to be kept in the public sector, the State would benefit to the extent of 100 per cent., whereas if Wytch Farm oil—which we are not discussing, incidentally—were to go to the private sector, the taxation that would accrue to the State would be about 80 per cent. to 83 per cent.
What choice will the Government give BGC over the division of the oilfields amongst the subsidiaries? Will the corporation have a free hand in relation to the allocation of the fields to those subsidiaries, or do the Government intend to follow through the order by directing BGC to subdivide its oil-bearing interests into parcels and portions?
I recognise, as the Minister said, that the order is purely a preliminary along the way to the disposal of the assets. What conceivable practical reason is there for the disposal of the offshore oil and gas resources from the public to the private sector? Admittedly., they are valuable in themselves but minuscule compared with the huge fields in the Shetland basin and further south. Does the Minister not think that it would be advantageous for BGC to retain an exploration and development role in partnership with private industry so that we retain not only the entrepeneurial spirit of the private sector but also the steadiness and quality of work that BGC has done for many years?
I do not think that it can be faulted for its operations in the last 20 years. These assets cannot be removed as a penalty for inefficiency or failure. Among the nationalised corporations, BGC is one of the most efficient, and it has a considerable role to play in future if given the opportunity by the Government to develop its position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the debate ends at 11.30, and that the wind-up speeches are expected at 11.20. If other speeches are brief, it may be possible to call all those hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye.

Mr. Tim Eggar: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that the BGC had an admirable record, but earlier he referred to the possibility that not enough gas would be available to supply the United Kingdom. That is because the BGC has been manipulating the demand and controlling the supply. It has not been prepared to fix high enough prices. There has not been enough exploration. As a result, we have a possible supply problem. The fact that the BGC has controlled the demand and supply of gas has led to the considerable problems that we now face.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), who has left us, said .:hat there should be a reason for the BGC continuing to maintain its oil holdings. It was a


Labour Government who in section 12 of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act included a provision whereby the Secretary of State could arbitrarily transfer the BGC's oil assets straight to BNOC, in exactly the same way as the Labour Government did with the NCB's interests. Therefore, back in 1975 they recognised that there was complete illogicality in BGC having oil interests.
If the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) tries to point out that the transfer could only be to BNOC, my answer is that I have always advocated that, prior to BNOC' s denationalisation and sale, the BGC's oil interests should have been rolled into BNOC, whose interests should then have been privatised.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil asked whether a complete divestment of the BGC's oil interests was appropriate. Of course, when the Government approached the BGC chairman and asked, "Would you consider selling off part of your oil interests and maintaining a minority stake?", they were told that the BGC would have nothing to do with it. Now, when the Government force divestment of those oil interests, the BGC starts complaining about the poor price that it is likely to get for any divestment, particularly in relation to Wytch Farm. Of course, if the BGC had been prepared to co-operate with the Government over Wytch Farm and had sold a year ago it would have got a better price than it is now likely to get. The outlook for oil prices has worsened and by forcing delays, BGC has almost certainly lost revenue. Of course, the price for Wytch Farm or for any other gas interest is that which the buyer is prepared to pay. There is no question of a forced sale. The value of the assets is fixed by the fact that other parties can bid for them.
For a long time I was worried about the way in which our oil industry had developed because of the power that the State has through BNOC or the BGC. It has stifled the development of a small indigenous United Kingdom oil industry. One need only compare the way in which a few independent companies operate in the North Sea with the number of companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico. The previous Labour Government always gave preference to large State-controlled oil companies and as a result the small independent companies lost out in terms of licence awards and staffing problems.
Therefore, one big advantage of the procedure suggested by the Government is that the assets may be disposed of—I know that the Government have not yet reached a decision—in relatively small parcels, which can then be purchased by small independent United Kingdom companies, giving them oil production, against which they could offset any future exploration expenses. Small independent companies do not have the cash flow or revenue stream for offsetting exploration. If we want an independent oil industry it is important that the small companies should be able to buy into existing production. That would be to the enormous benefit of the United Kingdom oil industry, and of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall try to be brief. We are concerned not that the Government are seeking to short-change Parliament but that they are determined to short-change the nation.
I shall refer only to the Minister's speech, as the speech made by the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar)—which gave credence to our views about the sale—and the speeches made by the hon. Members for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) should not be taken seriously. They were attempts to distract the House's attention. However, Ministers should have some answers. The Minister should have responded to the questions that he knew to be inevitable. I hope that he will have sufficient time at the end of the debate to supply those answers.
The Minister suggested that the Government are part of the mainstream pedigree of the Conservative Party. He entirely overlooked the fact that BP was nationalised by Sir Winston Churchill and that the Government are different from any other Conservative Administration in modern times. If there is any similarity, it is that Mr. Harold Macmillan said:
You have never had it so good",
while this Government are clearly determined to go at the end of their period of office saying, "We have never had it so good". There is a simple difference. I hope that the Minister will spend some time in explaining the difference before the debate ends.
The Minister should tell the House who the Government have in mind to act as the independent consultant referred to in clause 9. I hope that the Select Committee on Energy will interview the gentleman to ascertain whether he has the independence and ability to take on such a role. I hope that he will not be a fully paid-up member of the Conservative Party, and that none of his relatives will buy any of the shares or take part in any of the transactions that might follow.
Whether or not an independent consultant is appointed, I believe that the Department of Energy and the Treasury know the value involved in the transactions. Will the Minister give the Department's estimate of the value of the oil interests of British Gas? The hon. Member for Enfield, North may have that information, but the House should have an official estimate.
The Secretary of State should inform the House, if the Minister cannot, what the Government expect to receive now from the disposal of the interests of British Gas. We should be informed also how much less will be received from disposal within the next few months than would have been received if the disposals had taken place 18 months ago when a higher price would have been available. The Minister should tell us why the Government are in such a rush when they know that in 12 months the price may be better, and therefore the national interest will be better served.
What arrangements will be made to ensure that British interests are properly protected? Can we be absolutely sure that the British vultures who may flock round this juicy corpse will have priority? It will be easier for the Labour Party to recover a fair share for the community from British buyers than from those foreign interests who may gather around. We can retrieve our national assets more easily if the Government do not give too much away to alien sources.
There are two or three relevant points. What assurance do we have that the various oil fields that have been mentioned—the Minister has already listed them—will be properly exploited? We need to be sure that the oil will be taken thoroughly from such fields as a result of adequate investment and the maintenance of the policies of British


Gas, rather than for some slick operation to take most of the oil and not continue with the exploitation that is in the national interest?
What assurance do we have that the Secretary of State, Ministers and Government members will not be involved in buying shares? I spent a great deal of time in local government and we declared our interests. I hope that the interests of the friends and relatives of Government members will be fully declared.

Mr. Peter Rost: It should be put on record, and I have not yet heard it from the Government, that British Gas has a first class record in the exploration and development of oil in the North Sea. It has a good reputation and has been highly successful.
It is a great pity that British Gas did not accept the first option offered by the Government and allow its oil interests to be hived off in a separate company with a major shareholding offered to the private investor and British Gas allowed to retain a minority holding. That could have been an acceptable option. I understand that the Government put it to British Gas but British Gas rejected it.
The fact that British Gas has an excellent record in oil exploration and development does not necessarily justify the Opposition's argument that it should inevitably be allowed to retain its interests. The talent and technical ability that have made the exploration successful will not be lost. The success is due to the technicians, and the know-how will be passed on to the purchasers.
British Gas would have far better served the consumer and the nation had it concentrated a little less on oil exploration and development and a little more on gas. Because British Gas has used its monopoly to hold down the price of North Sea gas and it has not been rewarding for the oil industry to explore for and develop gas, we now import more than a quarter of our gas from Norway. That is not a good example of British Gas having served the best interests of the consumer and the nation.

Mr. John Hannam: Does not the fact that this week the newspapers have reported British Gas's first gas exploration well bear out my hon. Friend's point?

Mr. Rost: Yes, indeed.
There is potentially a vast amount of gas in the British sector of the Continental Shelf. Many estimate that the gas reserves are larger than the oil reserves. In the past many oil companies have almost been embarrassed to discover gas, as it has not been cost-effective to develop it. British Gas, as the monopoly buyer, has not been prepared to offer a price that would produce a fair return on the risk and the capital investment, yet it has bought from Norway under long-term contracts at higher prices than it could have got it from British exploration and development. That situation will be remedied by the legislation that the Government have put on the statute book and by this measure.
If the oil interests are hived off to the private sector in whatever option the Government finally decide on, it will allow British Gas to concentrate its efforts on exploring for and developing gas, which is what it should have been doing more effectively in the past. With the private sector also competing under the provisions of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 for the exploration and development

of gas, the interests of the consumer and the nation will be far better served. Gas will be offered at a competitive price to industry rather than exclusively to British Gas.
I support the measure. It will be far more in the nation's interests if the incentives for the exploration and development of gas are widened and British Gas allowed to get on with that side of the business instead of being too much involved in oil exploration.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not see the relevance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) to a debate on gas. Many hon. Members may have wished to speak about oil, but they have respected the ruling that contributions must be relevant to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a fairly wide debate and I have not yet heard anything that is out of order.

Mr. Rost: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) did not listen to my argument or to those of many Opposition Members, including from the Opposition Front Bench, which were far more wide-ranging than my modest contribution.
I conclude, more controversially, by saying that it is a great pity that the debate was launched by the Opposition, because it shows the humbug and hypocrisy of their argument, such as it is. The Labour Government flogged off a huge chunk of shares in BP without a parliamentary debate, because they were afraid that Labour Back-Bench Members would vote against it, and without proper explanation, because it might have embarrassed their philosophy of State ownership. They sold the controlling interest in BP at an attractive price and all those who bought shares made a handsome profit from them. Yet we have heard hon. Members this evening complaining about the Conservative Party, which believes in private enterprise, doing the same thing. I urge hon. Members to restrain their hypocrisy if they are to remain remotely credible. They must accept that the present proposals are not only in the mainstream of the Conservative Party's policy but are in the mainstream of what we believe is in the consumer's and the national interests.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) ended his contribution with some provocative remarks. 1 shall begin mine by doing so. I wish that the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 applied to statutory instruments, because this direction is fraudulent. People are languishing in prison for much less serious fraud than that which the Secretary of State is perpetrating in this instrument. If the Trade Descriptions Act had applied, I should have tried to prosecute the Secretary of State for producing a false prospectus.
I make no serious allegation about the commencement date, which is factual. However, it is disgraceful that a date should have been set so late in a Parliament, especially in view of the state of the market at present. I accuse the Secretary of State of sharp practice in setting the date. Why was it that Parliament had hardly closed its doors for the Summer Recess when, within three working days—on 4 August—the statutory instrument was made? On 6 August, it was laid before a Parliament that was not sitting and it came into operation on 31 August. That happened despite the fact that Ministers said that the


amendments moved by me in Committee were needless. I was assured many times that there would be ample time for lengthy debate in the House, but this instrument was laid behind Parliament's back and we should have had only one and a half hour to debate it if the earlier debate had not collapsed accidentally.
The direction contains the most fraudulent conversion ever perpetrated on the British taxpayer. Paragraph 1 should read:
These directions may be cited as the most monstrous fleecing of the British taxpayer in history.
If a sheep fanner had fleeced his tups and ewes in the way that the Secretary of State and the Government are fleecing the British people, he would face the full rigours of the law. It seems that cruelty to animals is treated much more seriously than cruelty to the British people by this Government.
I wish to ask the Minister some specific questions. How much is the British Gas Corporation to be paid for operating these subsidiaries? Will it be fully compensated? Or will British gas consumers be further financially penalised? The British Gas Corporation—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—will, I believe, have to do all the geological survey work, with the cost to be borne again by the gas consumer. Or will the BGC be paid a commercial rate, to give the gas consumer a fair deal? These questions have to be answered.
I wonder why there should be such indecent haste to strip the assets of this most efficient industry. There can be no doubt that if what remains of British industry, after the ravages of this Tory Government, were half as efficient as the British gas industry, we would be the economic miracle men of Europe rather than the sick men of Europe. Why should these valuable public assets be transferred now and in such haste? As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) reminded the House, the British gas industry has been involved for nearly 30 years in this type of exploration. In that time, four Tory Governments could have taken this sort of action. The answer is that this is the most doctrinaire and vicious Tory Government this century.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The debate has revolved not around the details of the directions but what they are fundamentally all about. Hon. Members on both sides are agreed that they are about selling off to the private sector the national asset and interest in oil. Conservative Members have defended the directions on the grounds that what they propose is good. One area in which the Government have gone badly wrong is in their proposals to sell off national assets when this country, unlike many industrial nations of the West, has oil and gas in plentiful quantities.
The Government are forcing a profitable public enterprise to sell off one of the most valuable assets that this nation owns through the public sector. If Conservative Members were debating the selling-off of a loss-making nationalised industry, they would be informing the public that this was a good course to follow in getting rid of a loss-maker. The question that arises is whether they dare tell the public what a good thing it is to sell off profitable public assets. Oil is one commodity that Arab, African and

Asian nations would love to get their hands on. Britain's oil, however, has to be sold off to multinational companies and taken away from the taxpayer.

Sir Frederick Burden: Will not the hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that we believe that many of the performances of the nationalised industries show that they are not making the best of the national assets? If they go private, they will still be a national asset and a much greater asset than now.

Mr. Woolmer: I wish that I had not given way. This is a national asset that the British public well understands should be in the ownership of the nation. After all, the Gas Corporation makes £1,000 million for the taxpayer through gas levy and taxation. This is an enormously profitable enterprise. Yet the Conservative Party insists that one of the nation's greatest assets should be sold off. The Minister said that the details of how it is to be sold off are to come. The British Gas Corporation does not want to sell, is not prepared to sell and is being forced to sell. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque tonight. When it comes back to us, we shall be told that it is too late, the decision has been made and that the British Gas Corporation has no alternative. We shall have no alternative at all.
I suggest to the nation and to the House that this a fraud upon the taxpayer and the nation. The House should resist the motion and vote in favour of protecting a public asset.

Mr. Rowlands: The Under-Secretary of State must not come to the House and use such a patronising and lecturing tone. He was not a member of the Committee which dealt with the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill. The Minister spelt out some of the options. He said, for example, that one of the options would be to sell off completely one or more of the subsidiaries that will be created as a result of the directions. He did not say what would happen if all the American partners holding licences with British Gas exercised their pre-emptive right to acquire those assets from British Gas. That would amount to nothing more than a right for American oil companies to buy our national oil assets. We completely reject that philosophy and approach.
We are not willing to give a blank cheque to Ministers, which is what the directions are and what the whole of the oil and gas legislation has been about. The legislation enables the Government to sell off assets when they like, how they like and at whatever price they like. We already know their tawdry track record of privatisation. We know exactly what happened to British Aerospace shares. We know exactly by how much they sold those shares short. We know exactly by how much Cable and Wireless and Amersham were sold short.
We know what happened to the grand Conservative concept of the wide dispersal of shares. Within 24 hours of Amersham being on the market, more than half the shares of that company had changed hands, and now lie chiefly in blocks of £250,000 and more, in small groups belonging either to the financial institutions or the insurance companies. That is what happens as a result of privatisation. It has nothing to do with the wide dispersal of shares.
We know, too, what has happened to the idea of "benefit to the Exchequer". The Minister constantly


referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee repeatedly pointed out that the Exchequer and the taxpayer are sold short when these assets are sold. For that reason we should refuse to give the Government the powers that they seek and refuse to support the proposals to sell off British Gas oil assets in the North Sea.
It was said that no one forecast Amersham. We on the Opposition Benches forecast in Committee and on the Floor of the House what would happen to Amersham. We forecast how cheaply the Government intend to sell off Britoil shares. We know that will happen to these assets if the Government get their way. We opposed not only the doctrine and philosophy behind the privatisation proposals but the tawdry practices that followed them. The practices have been of very great benefit to underwriters, stockbrokers and merchant bankers. There has been no benefit to the nation either in increased oil reserves or oil development, or to the taxpayer and consumers of Britain. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the directions.

Mr. John Moore: I apologise to all hon. Members whose detailed points I shall not have the opportunity to answer. I shall do so in detailed correspondence.
I am a little disturbed at the tone of the comments of one or two hon. Members in the last ten minutes of the debate. The remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), for whom I have great respect and personal friendship, were unnecessary, in suggesting that at any time any hon. Member on either side of the House could in any way be involved in personal advantage, but would not follow all the normal rules of courtesy in the House. Knowing the hon. Gentleman's quality and his background, I am sure that he will consider withdrawing later on. Such personal slurs do not improve the quality and nature of our debates.
I shall mention some of the relatively important points that were made. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), together with the hon. Members for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and Rother Valley, legitimately asked about the consultants. After competitive tendering processes BGC has, with the Department's agreement, appointed Energy Research Consultants to prepare the petroleum consultants' report. It is a highly reputable independent United Kingdom petroleum consultancy company. The hon. Member for Dunfermline must be aware from his background knowledge that the report will contain commercially confidential information, so it would be improper to make it available to the House. If the disposal proceeds by way of a flotation, which is one of the options, the summary of the report will be available in the prospectus.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and Bristol, North-East asked about Wytch Farm. The sale is being conducted by BGC. It is for the corporation to answer detailed questions about it. I gather that BGC has received a number of offers and is negotiating with bidders. Negotiations are commercially confidential. It would be wrong for me to give any details or to speculate on the likely outcome at this stage.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked specific questions. I apologise that I cannot answer them all now. Methane is included. It is open to BGC to purchase the gas

in due course, but, as I said in my opening speech when I tried to answer the detailed points, the quantity involved is equal only to one quarter of 1 per cent. of the remaining United Kingdom CS gas reserves. I do not believe that the small minority interest in the offshore oilfields is of any value to BGC's gas operations, particularly as in the cases that we are considering BGC is not the operator.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the future exploration role, which was a legitimate point. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) rightly complimented the corporation on its exploration activities. No decision has been taken to change I3GC's exploration role, but its proper business is to supply and distribute gas, not oil.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) asked me to confirm or deny the number of letters and observations that I have had from the corporation individuals in the House and outsiders about disposal. To my knowledge, no letters have been received in my Department and there have been no approaches from the company.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford made an extremely constructive speech. He asked many detailed questions, which showed that he had read with care the details of the direction. I trust that he will understand if I write to him on the points that he raised. I shall note carefully many of the observations that he made, especially concerning the options that I discussed.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, surprisingly, because we do not normally disagree on some fundamental points, mentioned continuity. It is extraordinary to consider that the Opposition have the gall to come to the House and debate continuity but over 20 or 30 years, whenever they have been in office, there has been the constant ratchet movement to the Left in terms of nationalising our primary industries. The hon. Gentleman wants a clear view of monopoly. I should have thought that any and all hon. Members on both sides of the House would not find monopolies anything other than wrong, by definition, and would seek always to avoid monopoly. .I should have thought that that would be the attitude of all those who seek, in a competitive free society, the opportunity to grow. There are roles for regulated statutory monopolies, which can be unavoidable. I understand that. However, the aim of attaining a monopoly is wrong.
We have had a relatively loud debate. However, we have debated only a preliminary step towards the ultimate aim of the privatisation of BGC's offshore oil interests. That fact should not be allowed to obscure the merits of this ultimate aim.
During the past 30 years, the public sector has been allowed to tighten its stultifying grip over more and more of our economy. That process must be reversed. The disposal of the BCC's offshore oil assets will be an important element in that reversal. I therefore commend the direction to the House and invite hon. Members to reject the Opposition Prayer.

Question put:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the British Gas Corporation (Disposal of Offshore Oilfield Interests) Directions 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1131), dated 4th August 1982, a copy o F which was laid before this House on 6th August, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 279.

Division No. 331] 
[11.30 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Adams, Allen
George, Bruce


Allaun, Frank
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Donald
Golding, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gourley, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Graham, Ted


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Homewood, William


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hoyle, Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Les


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Janner, Hon Greville


Canavan, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lamond, James


Conlan, Bernard
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin F.
Leighton, Ronald


Cowans, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Deakins, Eric
McKelvey, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Marks, Kenneth


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Dunnett, Jack
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


English, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morton, George


Ewing, Harry
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Faulds, Andrew
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Field, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Fitch, Alan
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Ford, Ben
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Forrester, John
Palmer, Arthur


Foster, Derek
Parker, John


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Pavitt, Laurie


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)





Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Race, Reg
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Richardson, Jo
Tilley, John


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Robertson, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wardell, Gareth


Rooker, J. W.
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watkins, David


Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Ryman, John
Welsh, Michael


Sever, John
White, Frank R.


Sheerman, Barry
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Whitehead, Phillip


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitlock, William


Short, Mrs Renée
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Woodall, Alec


Snape, Peter
Woolmer, Kenneth


Soley, Clive
Wright, Shella


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton E)


Spriggs, Leslie



Stallard, A. W.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stoddart, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Stott, Roger
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Strang, Gavin





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter


Alexander, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Cope, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Corrie, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Costain, Sir Albert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Crouch, David


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Blaker, Peter
Eggar, Tim


Body, Richard
Elliott, Sir William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Sir Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Faith, Mrs Shella


Braine, Sir Bernard
Farr, John


Brinton, Tim
Fell, Sir Anthony


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brown, Michael(Brigg Sc'n)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Chapman, Sydney
Glyn, Dr Alan


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodlad, Alastair






Gow, Ian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Gray, Hamish
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Grieve, Percy
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Loveridge, John


Grist, Ian
Luce, Richard


Grylls, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Gummer, John Selwyn
McCrindle, Robert


Hamilton, Hon A.
Macfarlane, Neil


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacGregor, John


Hannam, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Haselhurst, Alan
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Hastings, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
McQuarrie, Albert


Hawksley, Warren
Major, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Marland, Paul


Heddle, John
Marlow, Antony


Henderson, Barry
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Hicks, Robert
Mates, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Hill, James
Mawby, Ray


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Mayhew, Patrick


Hooson, Tom
Mellor, David


Hordern, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Miscampbell, Norman


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Howells, Geraint
Moate, Roger


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Monro, Sir Hector


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Montgomery, Fergus


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Moore, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Morgan, Geraint


Jessel, Toby
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Mudd, David


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Murphy, Christopher


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Myles, David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Neale, Gerrard


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Needham, Richard


Knox, David
Nelson, Anthony


Lang, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Latham, Michael
Newton, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Onslow, Cranley


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Lee, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)





Page, Richard (SW , Herts)
Squire, Robin


Parris, Matthew
Stainton, Keith


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stanley, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony


Pawsey, James
Stevens, Martin


Percival, Sir Ian
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John


Pollock, Alexander
Stradling Thomas, J.


Porter, Barry
Tapsell, Peter


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Donald


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Renton, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Hugh
Waddington, David


Rost, Peter
Wakeham, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Walker, B. (Perth)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Ward, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Silvester, Fred
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Dudley
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speed, Keith



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Spence, John
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Carol Mather.


Sproat, lain

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Glue Sniffing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Keith Best: I make no excuse for raising this important matter in the House, notwithstanding the fact that there was a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on the same subject on 20 April of this year. I raise the matter now both because of my personal concern about the magnitude of the problem among young people and also to enable my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to report on Government progress in this matter.
I do not wish to raise fears unnecessarily, or in any way to be accused of placing the problem of glue sniffing out of proportion to its reality, but one of the great difficulties is in trying to assess how widespread among young people is solvent abuse, as the matter should more properly be described.
In April, the Under-Secretary said:
More research is needed, but the evidence does not justify the alarm generated in some quarters and we must always be careful not to encourage some to experiment just because they hear about this craze … Reliable information on the numbers of sniffers or the proportion whose misuse becomes prolonged is not available.—[Official Report, 20 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 243.]
I should like my hon. Friend tonight to state what efforts the Government are making to ascertain the extent of the problem. A written question to my hon. Friend, answered on Monday 25 October, asking him what information he has on the number of persons admitted to hospital suffering from the effects of solvent misuse, received the answer that information on hospital admissions relating solely to solvent misuse is not available. Solvent misuse may be a small or a large problem. I suspect and hope that it is the former, but we just do not know and, bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments about the absence of information, I hope that he can now give the House an assurance that his Department will try to assemble more statistics on the matter by contact with police, health services, education authorities and other bodies dealing with young people. Of course, such statistics could not lead to conclusive evidence as most of those bodies, when they become involved with young people in such circumstances, can only suspect that there has been solvent misuse rather than being able to prove the matter. Nevertheless, it would be a step in right direction.
I welcome the Government's attitude of trying to inform persons more about solvent misuse, and I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister specifically whether he intends that there should be any further seminars held under the aegis of the DHSS, as the one at Guy's hospital in London last November. That was a valuable study and research into the problem and should be repeated. In April this year my hon. Friend told the House that a training film for parents and professionals likely to come into contact with solvent sniffers was to be promulgated by the Central Office of Information. In addition, he said that the Government were exploring the possiblity of a book, perhaps based on the Guy's seminar, as an aid for professionals. Perhaps he could tell the House now how these projects have progressed.
I welcome what my hon. Friend then said about his Department funding studies into solvent abuse and I should like to know whether any such studies have been undertaken or requests made by local services for such funding. Finally, from a long string of questions to my hon. Friend, which I hope he will be able to answer, I understand that his officials have consulted representatives of the voluntary services to learn what more the Government might do to strengthen and enhance their responses. Perhaps he can inform the House what consultations have taken place and what the results have been.
Of course, a number of solutions have been suggested by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) suggested that some substance could be added to aerosol sprays that would make people physically sick if they tried to inhale them, and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked for further research into the use of aversive additives to the substances in order to make them less attractive to the glue sniffer. I should like to tell my hon. Friend that, although these may seem attractive remedies, I believe that the problems inherent in them in trying to find an aversive substance that does not materially affect the efficacy of the substance's main purpose are so great as to render such a course impractical in the present state of the art.
There are legislative checks to safeguard young people on the purchase of alcohol and tobacco, but not on solvents. I am aware of the problem that such legislation could create, it being impossible to restrict the sale of the wide range of household products containing solvents. Enforcement would be difficult also as retailers would have to judge whether certain restrictions applied in various cases and might face prosecution if their judgment was wrong. Nevertheless, it is well known that certain solvents are more commonly used by sniffers, such as toluene and other hydrocarbons found in impact adhesives and glues. At least such products could have warnings on their containers even if they were not as dramatic as the poster published for retailers by the Hardward Trade Journal which states
Glue sniffing kills! We do not sell glue to anyone under sixteen unless accompanied by an adult.
I ask my hon. Friend to look more carefully into such matters to see whether action can be initiated.
In the absence of any real statistics, we can rely only upon our own experience and reports in the press which, I accept, can tend to dramatise the subject. I find it deeply disturbing that many hon. Members have asked the Government to assemble statistics but nothing appears to have been done. Many people report incidents of persons in parks and on underground trains, as well as in other places, with their heads buried in plastic or paper bags obviously inhaling solvent vapour. My experience of the courts has led me to the conclusion that in many cases there is a link between solvent abuse and anti-social behaviour, which can lead to crime.
According to a recent report in the journal Human Toxicology, published as a result of the seminar held at Guy's hospital last November, the menace of solvent abuse has been on the increase during the past 10 years with the number of solvent-related deaths quadrupling in the period 1975 to 1981. Thirty-nine young people died in 1981, either as a direct result of solvent inhalation or through related accidents occurring as a result of intoxication from such substances. However, the actual


figures may be higher, as cases which are solvent-related are often not recognised as such, ether by the police or by local health authorities.
The solvents involved are contained not only in glues but in a wide range of household and industrial products that are easily accessible to young people at low cost. These products include gas lighter fuel, hair spray, cleaning agents, dyes, paraffin, adhesives, nail varnish remover, and many others. They can either be sniffed directly from their containers, mixed with drinks or, in the case of aerosols, sprayed directly into the mouth or nose. Another common practice is to saturate a cloth, which is then held to the mouth or nose. Plastic bags may also be placed over the head to concentrate the fumes and thus heighten the effect.
The dangers of such practices are wide-ranging as well. There is much disagreement over the long-term effects of solvent abuse, but it has been established that damage can occur to the kidneys and liver. However, there is no doubt that young people have died as a result of the circumstances under which sniffing occurs. There is a danger of asphyxiation from the use of plastic bags over the head, or of suffocation if the sniffer chokes on his own vomit. Most dangerous of all is the practice of inhaling from pressurised containers, such as aerosols, fire extinguishers or gas containers. With such products, the propellant particles can cause spasms and asphyxiation and also metal poisoning. Sudden death has occurred after inhaling fluorocarbon, a liquefied gas present in most aerosols. If aerosols are sprayed directly into the mouth or nose, the whole substance is inhaled and not just the fumes from the solvent. This could coat the inside of the lungs, causing suffocation. Dizziness and faulty space perception of the intoxicated sniffer can lead to falls and sometimes fatal accidents, especially as the practice is often carried out in out-of-the-way places, such as river embankments and railway lines.
I find it deeply disturbing that many hon. Members have asked the Government to assemble statistics but nothing appears to have been done. A written parliamentary question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, asking what information he had on the number of persons suffering from the effects of solvent misuse who come to the attention of the police, elicited the reply today that such information as is collected by the police is not available centrally. What, then, has happened to the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—who, I noted with pleasure, was in the Chamber a moment ago—when he occupied my hon. Friend's position in the DHSS, when he stated on 12 March 1981:
we are actively exploring a way of collecting statistics and what more can be done to educate parents and children and improve local co-operation".—[Official Report, 12 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 382.]
How successful has that collection of statistics been, and where are the statistics?
Although this problem has occupied my attention for a considerable time, the immediate catalyst in bringing it to the attention of the House was the headline in the North Wales Chronicle of 16 September 1982:
Glue Sniffers In Frenzy On Mountain".
It referred to pots of glue and numerous plastic bags being found strewn about Bangor mountain along paths popular with people out walking. I note—again, with pleasure—that my hon. Friend the Member for Conway

(Mr. Roberts) is in the Chamber, no doubt taking a close interest not only as a result of his ministerial responsibility but because the event to which I have referred occurred in his constituency. That prompted a responsible and helpful editorial from that newspaper on 30 September, referring to 32 cases of glue sniffing documented in Gwynedd schools and setting out the tell-tale signs for parents to look for in ascertaining whether their children are indulging in what can become addictive and lead to permanent damage or even fatal consequences.
It may be helpful if I refer to part of the article because in my view it was a responsible contribution to the debate. It said:
As with drugs abuse some mothers may feel that it could not happen to their children. But glue sniffing is no respecter of social status or upbringing.
Group sniffing is commonplace, those taking part are nearly all boys, aged 11 to 19, although girls are becoming more involved. Last year at least 45 youngsters in Britain were killed by the habit.
How can mothers tell if their child indulges in the craze?
These are the ten-tale signs to look for:
Is there a smell of glue in the house?
Has your son or daughter taken to sleeping at unusual times?
Do they then wake up and become aggressive towards you?
If this is happening, it's time to become worried.
The need for sleep and the aggressive behaviour are the classic symptoms. Outwardly the reddening around the nose similar to the effects of cold sores is sometimes visible.
When the glue sniffer begins to inhale, the first sensation is a kind of numbness. This is followed by dizziness which develops into a feeling of euphoria and many then begin to hallucinate.
They see different colours and objects coming from space and floating into them. This lasts for an hour or more depending on the amount of glue inhaled. While they are on this 'high' they can behave in a way which is now euphemistically labelled 'antisocial'—like beating, someone up, shop lifting or stealing. As they come out of the 'high' they desperately want to sleep, then they awake with a headache and hangover symptons which leads to the aggressiveness. This will wear off and after a good night's sleep they will be ready to start the cycle again. Apart from damaging the brain to an extent which can cause paralysis, postmortem examinations have also shown that glue sniffing affects other systems of the body, particularly the lungs and liver; eventually, it kills.
That was a dire warning from the editorial of that newspaper which I hope those who might consider indulging in this dangerous practice, and indeed parents, will take cognisance of.
There was also a recent report by Dr. D. P. W. Roberts, a specialist in community medicine to Gwynedd county council. During the course of that report he stated:
Arrangements ate now in hand whereby the Police in North Wales inform the Health Authority of children found to be misusing solvents. They also advise the children and parents of the danger of such practices and suggest seeking the advice of their general practitioners. On the Health Authority side the family guidance se: vice offer a counselling service to the children and parents. About half of these accept such a service. School authorities and school medical officers are kept informed. The general view of the medical and teaching profession about dealing with the problem is to act quickly where incidents occur but not to draw too much attention to the matter in a school situation and to adopt a low key' approach. It is difficult to give accurate statistical information on whether the problem is growing or subsiding. I believe the less attention the media gives to this matter the better. The problem is more prevalent in the urban areas of Gwynedd, especially along the North Wales coastline.
The education of parents, teachers and other persons involved with young people is essential. This kind of activity may be occurring under the very noses of parents without them realising what is happening because they have no knowledge of the symptoms.
I am glad that the Government's response is to help the helpers, but I invite my hon. Friend to be more aggressive. What information is being circularised to schools? Are family practitioners being advised? What easily read and non-alarmist literature is being made available to parents? Such matters need to be discussed and in so doing we must inform and educate.
There is no evidence, as American studies have shown, that publicity of solvent abuse leads to its extension, since it was widespread before such publicity was given to it. It may be that only a few young people are involved in experimenting and that that does not lead to addiction, just as the first surreptitious smoke behind the shed by a youngster evading his parents does not necessarily lead to the habit of cigarette smoking. If it is not too late at night to make a personal admission, I can remember by own youthful escapades, evading my parents, down the garden smoking straws—a most revolting habit which must have put me off smoking for the rest of life.
However, there are some who indulge in the habit of glue sniffing and solvent abuse who do become addicted. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) who supplied me with a study on glue sniffing undertaken by Mr. McCarney, the senior lecturer on youth and community work at St. Joseph's college of education in Belfast, in the course of which some young people who have become addicted were interviewed. The last word, and our responsibility consequent upon it, should be left with them. They stated:
We are left with nothing to do except to go sniffing. We are all sorry that we started sniffing. We all want to give it up. But all we have is our mates and our glue. If anyone is thinking of starting to sniff—don't. It might seem good at first but after a while, when you want to stop, you will find that you can't.
I hope that tonight my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to offer hope to parents and children, and indeed to the House and Britain, that the Government are taking steps that will definitely achieve a reduction in a practice which could have serious consequences in future.

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Does the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) have the agreement of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) to intervene?

Mr. Best: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister knows that I have an interest in the subject. I have asked numerous questions of him previously, of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and of the previous Secretary of State for Social Services. In view of the replies that I have received for more than a year now, I am not at all satisfied that the Government are moving quickly enough on this subject, especially bearing in mind the problems in my own constituency.
I have received representations from doctors, solicitors, social workers and probation officers. Many of these youngsters are appearing in court because of what they are doing. I have gone round my constituency with doctors and have seen the end result of what these children have done. We have found plastic bags containing glue in stations, under tables in cafes, in telephone kiosks and elsewhere. This is a nation-wide problem, and I hope that

the Minister will not duck the issue. He should not tell us that it is a question of education. We want some action, and I hope that we shall get it tonight.

12 midnight

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am glad to have the opportunity of responding to this brief debate and of thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) for raising the issue. It is six months since the House last debated this matter, and public concern has not abated.
All around the country representatives of the social services, the police, the Health Service, doctors, health visitors, school nurses, teachers, youth workers and, in some places, retailers, have been meeting the problem in the ways best suited to their communities. With parents, they have been getting the job done. As I said in April, the Government have been busy helping these helpers, and tonight I am glad to be able to make a progress report.
My hon. Friend raised a number of detailed questions, and if I do not cover them all, I shall most certainly write to him with the information. Let me remind the House of the nature of the problem. It is not only glue that is sniffed. Substances that may be sniffed are, in the main, common household products, including adhesives, that are safe if used properly for their intended purpose, but they may well be misused to achieve intoxication and to experience hallucinations. In most cases, people who misuse solvents do so to experiment and then stop without appearing to sustain permanent physical harm.
I am worried in particular about the small minority of misusers who go on to prolonged misuse, because they may well suffer damage to the central nervous system, the liver or kidneys, or they may suffer psychological impairment. There seems to be evidence that this minority already has other problems, and it seems that solvent misuse may be an expression of these deeper problems.
The causation of any apparent damage from solvent misuse is not clear cut. The circumstances surrounding an individual's misuse may also be a cause. Nor is it known whether psychological defects result from experimental or short-term misuse. We do not know how many people are admitted to hospital as a result of solvent misuse because information is not kept in that way. Hospital statistics are largely based on the nature of an illness or injury rather than the circumstances in which it arose. These are areas in which research would be helpful.
Even when a condition is identified as being caused by the toxic effects of a solvent, the statistics do not distinguish accidental inhaling and deliberate solvent sniffing. It would not be acceptable to require hospitals to notify the police that an individual was there seeking treatment for the effects of solvent sniffing. All health care staff are under a very clear duty of confidentiality to patients, which may be breached only in very exceptional circumstances—for example, to bring a serious criminal to justice. Solvent misusers are not criminals. Indeed, youngsters needing help might be deterred from seeking it if it were known that they would be reported to the police.
Sadly, some people's misuse of solvents can be fatal. Recent research from St. George's hospital in Tooting has shown how many people have died. In some cases, it is the effects of the solvent that cause death. In others, death may result from the method of sniffing or an accident while intoxicated. There is clearly no room for


complacency. However, it must be said that the numbers involved are very small compared with the number of young people who died in road accidents last year. In 1980, 1,005 young people died as a result of road accidents and 27 died from sniffing glue. As my hon. Friend said, prevention is obviously better than cure.
Each individual is responsible for making sensible decisions about his or her own health. But since it is in the main youngsters of school age who misuse solvents, parents find themselves in the front line. They have to teach children about looking after their health; and parents have to find ways to help their children if they start sniffing. As I said in the House in April, let none of us seek to undermine parents' efforts, nor underestimate the support that they expect from all of us.
What should be done? A number of controls have been urged, but after very careful consideration the Government have decided these would not be helpful and might make matters worse. It would not be practicable to apply the stringent restrictions of the Misuse of Drugs Act to the ordinary household products that can be sniffed. Nor, I suggest, would the public accept the inconvenience. Requiring manufacturers to change their products' formulation would not, as my hon. Friend demonstrated, be practicable. Many products that we are now accustomed to using, such as impact adhesives or paint thinners, could not work without their solvent component. Adding an aversive substance may create other risks, as has been found in America, when New York State last year banned the use of the only viable adhesive substance available, when it was found that this substance carried a cancer risk. Warning labels might lead to an increase in solvent abuse rather than alleviate the problem.
All our inquiries indicate that local statutory and voluntary services, with retailers, are working together to give parents support and to help young solvent misusers. It is not right to go on saying that nothing can be done without fresh legislation. Solvent misuse is not a specific ground for social services intervention. However, child care legislation puts duties on social service authorities to promote children's welfare.
I turn to the more positive aspects of the issue and pay tribute to the Hardware Trade Journal and to Evode Ltd. for the encouragement that they have given to help people to understand the problems of solvent abuse. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked what had happened since April to help the helpers. I promised the medical profession a paper in the Department's journal Health Trends. It was published in May and a copy is in the Library. In July, the proceedings of the seminar at Guy's hospital, which the Department co-sponsored, were published in the journal Human Toxicology.
A training film for professionals is being made, following a suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler). Since April a "film treatment" has been considered by all the Departments concerned, including the Welsh Office and Departments in Scotland and Northern Ireland. After some further work, shooting of the film is to begin shortly. It is particularly encouraging that this project has caught the imagination of those working in the field. I am grateful for the fact that some trade associations have offered to co-finance the film and hope that other offers will be forthcoming. I anticipate that the film will be available for viewing and use in February.
I announced in April that we were exploring the possibility of a book for professionals. I can now inform the House that discussions have been held with Macmillan Ltd., which has invited a prospective editor to submit a detailed synopsis of a book. That is expected this week. If all goes well, I expect a book to be published early next year.
My hon. Friend asked about research. When the House last debated solvent misuse, I invited people to come forward with proposals for small scale studies, which, subject to their suitability, the Department might fund. 1 repeat that invitation tonight. I appealed in April for people with research proposals to come forward, but only six inquiries resulted, and of those only two followed up the information supplied to them. Those two are being developed into applications for funding, and I hope that they will prove to be pilot schemes. Another proposal that we have also been developing since the Guy's hospital seminar is among those with priority when decisions are next made on major departmental research funding.
I am disappointed at the lack of response to my proposal that people should send us ideas for small locally based research projects. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member Anglesey and the hon. Member for Ashfield will encourage people to send in such proposals. I announced in April that officials would consult representatives of retailers, on the scope for encouraging voluntary restraint, and representatives of statutory and voluntary services in England, on the support that they expect from the Government. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is considering consulting representatives of local services in Wales. We have had to take many people's advice in preparing the consultation letters, and officials have had some informal contacts already. The formal consultation letters will be sent out in the next few weeks and copies will be placed in the Library.
What more might be done? The consultation letters will be seeking ways of spreading good practice. One possibility is by promoting seminars. To see whether, and if so how, such occasions can be effective, the Department has underwritten the costs of a seminar earlier this month for those working with solvent misusers in the West Midlands and neighbouring regions.
Pressure on the Government for legislation to deal with this problem continues. We see no prospect of making sniffing itself or selling solvent products an offence in England, although I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly be making a statement on the result of the Scottish consultation. I do not wish to anticipate what my right hon. Friend will say, but I understand that the response to those consultations was strongly against the creation of such offences.
However, there may be scope for removing uncertainty about unlawful acts associated with solvent misuse. For example, the present offence of being drunk in a public place might be ex tended to include intoxication from solvents. The consuitation letter to statutory and voluntary services will seek views on whether changes in legislation might support and enhance local services' work with young solvent sniffers and their parents. In the meantime, I have asked officials to see whether anything needs to be done to help agencies detect whether someone is sniffing solvents and whether they can identify the solvent being misused.
I am anxious that general practitioners and hospital accident and emergency departments should be able to find out whether a young person has been inhaling solvents. That may also be important to other helping agencies, so that they can respond appropriately. Officials will report by the end of the year.
Everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey and the hon. Member for Ashfield have said tonight will be studied and I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for

Wales the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) will doubtless do it for me—what has been said about solvent misuse in Wales.
There is no simple answer to this problem. I hope that the House will agree that the Government's approach is both practical and sensible. It is to support the work of those supporting parents and solvent misusers. But in the end—I must repeat what I said in April—it is each individual's responsibility for his or her own health, rather than State intervention, that is the real safeguard against the hazards of glue sniffing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.